By Qamar Bashir
At the NATO summit held in The Hague, Netherlands, on June 25, 2025, President Donald Trump redefined the contours of American leadership—not through war, but through dominance, negotiation, and fiscal pressure. In one sweeping press conference after the summit’s conclusion, Trump laid out what can only be described as a bold new American doctrine: intervention without entanglement, alliance with accountability, and diplomacy from a position of absolute military superiority.
This was no longer the Trump of 2017, who had shoved his way to the front of the NATO family photo. This time, the alliance bent to his will, with leaders praising his demands, echoing his slogans, and adjusting their policies to match his vision. From British Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s hand-delivered invitation from King Charles III, to NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s comparison of Trump to a “daddy” figure quelling global tensions, the tone was reverent and deferential.
Trump, for his part, reciprocated with selective praise. He acknowledged NATO’s new commitments as a “historic shift,” especially the summit’s final declaration that all 32 member states would invest 5% of GDP on defense and security-related expenditures by 2035—a monumental increase from the previous 2% threshold. “I’ve been asking them to go up to 5% for a number of years,” Trump said. “And now they’ve agreed.”
Trump’s message to NATO was transactional: pay more, and buy American. “All that money you’ll be spending—spend it on American weaponry.”
He promoted U.S. arms exports with the flair of a salesman-in-chief, boasting of B-2 bomber missions over Iran, submarine-launched strikes from 600 miles away, and the near-perfect performance of Patriot missile systems. “Only one missile got through in Qatar—and it missed its target,” he bragged.
On Ukraine, Trump appeared resolute. He announced the deployment of Patriot missile systems to Kyiv, affirming U.S. support despite the summit’s broader downplaying of Ukraine’s war with Russia. “Patriots will shield Kyiv,” he said bluntly. This contradicted speculation that Trump was seeking to dial down U.S. involvement in Ukraine. Instead, his statement suggested a prolonged commitment, possibly to gain leverage in future peace talks.
Yet Trump’s doctrine was about more than defense budgets. It was about control. In the clearest terms yet, Trump emphasized that America will now set the terms for global security—not Israel, not NATO, not even long-standing doctrine like Article 5 of the NATO treaty. Although he had earlier cast doubt by saying America’s commitment to NATO “depends on your definition” of Article 5, he reassured allies during the press conference, saying: “I stand with it. That’s why I’m here. If I didn’t stand with it, I wouldn’t be here.”
Trump’s address took a dramatic turn as he recounted his decision-making during the recent Israel-Iran conflict. He surprised many by calling Iran a “great country” and acknowledging its fierce resistance. Trump insisted that U.S.-led strikes had “set back Iran’s nuclear program by many years,” dismissing media reports citing intelligence assessments that the delay was only “a few months.” “Those are low-confidence leaks. Deep state sabotage,” he said. “The Fordow facility is gone. Inoperable. Ask the Israelis.”
He then revealed that the U.S. had entered direct talks with Iran, signaling a major shift in strategy. Trump hinted at sanctions relief and oil export permissions as part of a “golden opportunity” for Iran to rebuild. “This is a golden opportunity for Iran,” he said. “Its people deserve peace, prosperity, and progress.”
Perhaps most striking was his admission that Israel had planned a second wave of attacks after the ceasefire using 52 jets. Trump claimed he personally called off the strike, saying: “The United States is no longer taking dictation from Israel. We are setting the terms now.”
This repositioned Trump not just as a peacemaker, but as a regional referee—capable of restraining even America’s closest allies if it meant avoiding wider war.
In a brief but significant disclosure, Trump confirmed that he held a closed-door meeting with Pakistan’s Army Chief, General Asim Munir, in the Oval Office just days prior to the NATO summit. “He is a great, great man,” Trump said, lauding the Pakistani general’s demeanor, leadership, and role in promoting regional stability.
While Trump did not publicly discuss the content of the meeting, media outlets and strategic analysts have speculated that the conversation may have touched upon Middle Eastern security dynamics, including Iran. Given General Munir’s deep familiarity with the region, particularly Pakistan’s shared border and strategic ties with Iran, some observers believe he may have been consulted—informally or tactically—regarding America’s military and diplomatic posture.
However, these conclusions remain speculative. Trump himself made no direct mention of any discussion on the Israel-Iran war or broader U.S. Middle East policy during his public remarks about General Munir. Nonetheless, the timing of the meeting—paired with Trump’s newfound tone on Iran—has stirred considerable interest among regional watchers.
The most controversial part of the press conference was Trump’s attack on the U.S. intelligence community. He accused anonymous officials of leaking classified assessments that undermined his narrative on Iran. “These are professional stabbers,” Trump thundered. “They want to embarrass our pilots, our military, our mission. We won’t let them.”
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth supported the president, announcing an investigation into the leaks and confirming the military’s high-confidence assessment that Iran’s capabilities had been significantly degraded.
Congressional briefings are now expected to clarify the situation further, but for Trump, the issue was political as much as it was military. “You either stand with America—or with the leakers,” he warned.
President Trump left The Hague not as a supplicant nor as a participant in a multilateral alliance—but as a domineering architect of a new world order. He rewrote the NATO playbook, reset U.S.-Iran relations, restrained Israel, and reasserted America’s centrality to every major global conflict.
For some, it was alarming. For others, it was long overdue. But for all, it was clear: Trump had come to The Hague not to join, but to command. And if his ambition to end the Ukraine war materializes, Pakistan’s Nobel Peace Prize nomination may not just be symbolism—it may become global recognition of a controversial yet undeniably consequential leader.
About Writer:r
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, Michigan, USA
