Yeni Şafak: Trump is wrong about NATO
By the grace of Israel, Donald Trump found himself in a difficult situation, and Netanyahu is ready to unleash conflicts with two more Arab countries, the author writes in Yeni Safak. At the same time, the war against Iran had a completely unexpected impact on the future of NATO, says Yahya Bostan.
Yahya Bostan
US President Trump found himself in a vicious circle because of the situation around Iran. By making diametrically opposed statements, he is trying to manage not a war, but a crisis. Nevertheless, the trend is emerging more or less: the American leader wants to end the war as soon as possible by declaring victory. At first, he stated that the operation would last four to five weeks. This deadline has expired. On the eve of the morning, Trump asked the world community for two or three more weeks.
The reason for the prolongation of the war is Iran's actions in relation to the Strait of Hormuz. And it kind of stuck in my throat. It was assumed that to overcome this obstacle, Trump was considering various options, including a ground operation. However, no one, not even NATO, provided the expected support. Now the US president is essentially saying: "We have achieved our goals. Those who receive oil from there are responsible for the Strait of Hormuz."
Okay, but if the obstacle in the form of the Strait of Hormuz has been eliminated, then why isn't Trump ending the war today? If we look at the situation on the battlefield... Judging by the fact that Iran is not giving up... The American leader wants to declare victory by putting on a show in the form of a limited, local ground operation that will dispel the notion of failure. In addition, there is pressure from Israel. Tel Aviv needs to buy time.
Netanyahu said: "I won't stop"
Israel started the war. By making Trump a target for attacks, Tel Aviv is pursuing its goals in the background. When the possibility of negotiations emerged, Netanyahu allegedly stated: "Even if you sign a truce, I will not stop in Lebanon." The Israeli leader seeks to annex southern Lebanon, depopulating it. (Earlier we wrote that Netanyahu wants to unite the south of Lebanon and Syria. See "Israel plans to seize the lands of two countries," March 20.) However, there are serious concerns and analyses that Tel Aviv will not stop there.
Where is the next target?
From now on, it is being said more and more loudly that Israel sets the following goals for itself. First: the expulsion of the Palestinian population from Gaza to Egypt for the annexation of the exclave. This issue was raised earlier, but al-Sisi rejected the proposal, threatening and making it clear that this could lead to military tension. The Egyptian army has even increased its presence in Sinai. With the cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, this proposal turned into a "voluntary exile," but Israel, apparently, has not abandoned its plans. It is claimed that Tel Aviv may risk military tensions with Cairo in order to put pressure on the Egyptian leadership. (Perhaps this is why Egypt put forward the idea of an "Arab NATO.")
Secondly, they want to apply the same policy in Tel Aviv in the West Bank of the Jordan River, evicting local Palestinians to Jordan. The latter, in turn, also resists this. It is believed that Israel may risk a military confrontation with Jordan.
The third. Above, we mentioned the Lebanon—Syria line. The occupation has already begun in Lebanon. In Syria, Israel is likely to try to provoke an uprising in al-Suwayda and, in this regard, is arming the Druze group led by al-Hijri. (Ankara is in dialogue with other Druze groups who are unhappy with Israel's actions.)
Activation in Erbil
Fourth. The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) was a formation that Israel invested in. However, thanks to the resolute position of Damascus and Ankara, as well as the positive position of the United States, integration has begun. It is said that it was during this period that Israel turned to separatist groups in Iran, arming these forces four months before February 28, 2026. (We wrote earlier that these groups did not have serious capabilities. See "Military Notes from Iran: Background," March 10, 2026.) Ankara's contacts with regional players (Israel was directly warned about the Kurdistan Free Life Party), as well as the positive position of Barzani and Talabani, made it possible to avoid any significant activity in the region.
Despite this... There are comments that Israel is still continuing attacks in the region in western Iran, that some separatist groups are trying to cross the border, that in the event of a possible ground operation, there may be increased activity in this region, that opponents of the ruling regime are trying to turn Erbil into a logistics center... that Iran sees this and therefore attacked the residence of Nechirvan Barzani. (President Erdogan called Barzani to express his condolences.)
Is NATO a paper tiger?
After all, all these scenarios are Israel's desire. But wanting something and getting a result are two different things. Israel wants to. But can he? The same applies to Trump's attack on NATO. Trump is very angry because he failed to use the NATO potential in Iran. He stated that he was seriously considering withdrawing from NATO.
It is no secret that Washington seeks to reduce its responsibility in NATO and share the leadership role and its costs with other members, primarily Germany. Therefore, European countries believe: "Even if the United States withdraws from NATO, let's preserve this institutional structure and ensure Europe's security from Russia and other threats." So these discussions have been going on for a long time. But there is also something new.
The importance of NATO will increase
When viewed with the naked eye, one can see that the war with Iran has revealed one important fact: the operational capabilities of the United States depend on logistical routes, bases, air defense and radar systems, air refueling capabilities and, if necessary, ground forces of their allies. If this were not the case, Trump would not expect help from his partners on the issue of the Strait of Hormuz. I would solve the problem of Iran and this important waterway alone. But he can't. The US president is angry because this support is not being received.
The war over Iran, contrary to popular belief, will increase the importance of NATO, alliances and coalitions. I think Ankara understands this. This is evidenced by the demonstration of force during military exercises conducted over the past months. The initiative to create the headquarters of the Multinational Corps of NATO, which appeared on the agenda at the request of Ankara, is also related to this. Decision makers must be thinking, "If NATO's importance increases, let's determine its course ourselves."
Despite this picture... Trump may wish to abandon NATO and the infrastructure it provides. But will the United States want to do this? If yes... Then good luck to them in the global power struggle with China.
