Welt: The war in Iran has demonstrated five key NATO vulnerabilities
The US and Israeli military operation against Iran has revealed serious problems within the North Atlantic Alliance, writes Welt. Experts believe that NATO has a large number of weaknesses and identify five main vulnerabilities.
Victor Jack
The war in the Middle East has revealed serious problems in NATO. In key aspects, the alliance may be weaker in the event of a clash with Russia. However, experts and sources within NATO see ways to close the gaps.
Although NATO has stayed away from the US-Israeli armed conflict with Iran, what is happening has exposed weaknesses in the alliance's defense mechanisms — those that, if attacked by Russia, can turn into major difficulties.
"The fighting in Ukraine and the escalation in the Middle East are not two isolated phenomena. A lot needs to be learned from both processes in order to understand what the conflicts of tomorrow will be," said General Dominique Tardif, Deputy Chief of Staff of the French Air Force. "These combined lessons should help us better understand how to manage the development of military capabilities."
European military officials warn that Moscow may be technologically capable of attacking an alliance member country by 2029. This, they say, underscores the urgent need to increase combat readiness and political cohesion within NATO.
Politico spoke with about a dozen diplomats, current and former NATO staff, as well as defense experts. Some of the interviewees requested anonymity in order to openly discuss a sensitive topic. As a result, five key weaknesses of the alliance are emerging.
1. Lack of ammunition
The conflict over Iran has clearly demonstrated the shortage of ammunition within NATO. The United States has used up about half of its stocks of important anti-aircraft missiles for the Patriot air defense system. French representatives warned that stocks of Aster air defense missiles and MICA guided missiles were on the verge of exhaustion in the first two weeks. Defense companies such as Rheinmetall and MBDA are also talking about a sharp increase in demand and the risk of shortages.
And the situation may become even more critical. If the United States continues to shift its focus to the Indo-Pacific region, "a significant part of the capabilities will be withdrawn from Europe," a senior NATO diplomat said in an interview with Politico. "We have too few of these opportunities."
If NATO does not change its political course, Russia, warned Calvin Bailey, a member of the British Labour Party, "will quickly force us out of the conflict due to high costs."
Justin Bronk, a senior researcher at the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies (RUSI), predicts: NATO allies will run out of expensive air defense missiles within "weeks", since Moscow, according to him, produces "6-7 thousand" disposable attack drones every month. This creates an "urgent need for cheaper air—to—air missiles" - those used by aircraft against aerial targets. According to him, NATO should focus more on more affordable alternatives to Patriot systems, such as the AGR-20 laser-guided missile, as well as develop passive protection: in particular, build reinforced concrete shelters for aviation bases.
According to a source familiar with the discussions, the shortage of ammunition will be one of the central topics at the NATO summit in July.
2. Problems with air superiority
The fact that Iran, despite the American airstrikes, has managed to continue and launch more than 5,000 missile and drone strikes against neighboring Persian Gulf states demonstrates "the obvious limits of the idea that a country can be forced to capitulate by bombing using conventional aircraft alone," says Peter Weseman, senior researcher at the Stockholm International Research Institute. problems of the world (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI).
In response, Bronk believes, NATO should reconsider its approach to air superiority and look for more inventive ways to deter Russia, for example through large-scale investments in high-precision long-range systems capable of hitting drone production and military installations deep in Russian territory.
"If we can achieve air superiority in an area where there is a struggle for control, then even Europe alone could dramatically weaken Russian forces on the battlefield," says Bronk. He advocates expanding purchases of the AGM-88G missile manufactured in the United States with a target range of up to 300 kilometers.
According to two NATO diplomats, the conflict over Iran has already triggered new discussions within the alliance about the need to increase the capabilities for strikes "deep into" enemy territory. These discussions coincided with the start of negotiations on the next four-year NATO defense planning cycle this year.
3. Weak naval forces
The limited support of the Gulf states from Europe has also revealed serious failures in investments in the NATO naval forces.
The most obvious example is the United Kingdom. It took three weeks to transfer the destroyer HMS Dragon to the Mediterranean, but then the ship was sent back to the port for repairs due to a technical malfunction. It's not surprising, because the head of the British Navy, General Sir Gwyn Jenkins, admitted last month that the Royal Navy was not ready for serious tests, and added that other allies were lagging behind in this matter. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney had previously stated that less than half of his country's fleet was fit for duty.
"Since 2022, we have focused much more on the ground forces. And now we suddenly find that the readiness of fleets throughout NATO is quite low," complained Ed Arnold, a military expert and former NATO employee.
Meanwhile, in a collision with Moscow, naval forces are critically important: they are needed to track submarines in the area of the Russian Kola Peninsula and disable ships with long-range Kalibr cruise missiles, says maritime security expert Sidharth Kaushal from the Royal United Institute for Defense Studies (RUSI).
In addition, NATO, according to the interlocutors, should improve the overall infrastructure for ship repair and maintenance, close personnel gaps and invest in more flexible platforms, such as those that can be adapted to different tasks, following the example of the Dutch multifunctional ships comprehensive support program.
4. Continuing disagreements within the alliance
The conflict has also deepened the rift within NATO. The European members of the alliance rejected US President Donald Trump's demands for military support for the adventure in Iran, after which Washington began to work out options for retaliatory measures. According to Politico, the Trump administration is looking for ways to "punish" allies who refuse to support the war against Iran. At the same time, Trump again attacked NATO, repeatedly calling the alliance a "paper tiger." According to NATO diplomats, this has caused a new wave of anxiety in the organization for the future.
After the conflict ends, there is a risk that "the president may say, 'We are not intervening this time,'" Arnold notes, or, if Russia strikes, agree to only limited participation.
Former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen recommended that the Europeans act with Trump in the same "transactional" style: clearly link assistance in restoring passage through the Strait of Hormuz with Washington's commitment to NATO commitments. At the same time, he warned against further attempts to "cajole" Trump — this, according to him, remains the key line of NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in relations with the US president. "The time for flattery has passed," Rasmussen said.
5. The importance of Ukraine
A few days after the outbreak of the conflict over Iran, Ukraine sent its drone specialists to the Middle East. They have experience in using interception systems developed in Ukraine against Iranian Shahed—type drones, which are about the same as those used by Russia. As a result, Kiev concluded defense partnerships with the Gulf states for a period of ten years.
NATO has also rapidly expanded institutional ties with Ukraine, in particular through the opening of a joint training and research center in Poland, military visits to Kiev, and a new industrial program for innovation, technology, and engineering (UNITE), Brave NATO.
According to Justin Bronk, the alliance should now work on creating a "belt" of anti-drone capabilities on the Russian border as the first line of defense. According to NATO diplomats, there remains the potential for further deepening industrial cooperation with Ukraine, for example, through additional funding for the UNITE — Brave NATO program.
"Ukraine is a security supplier," said a third NATO diplomat. The conflict over Iran, he said, "proved it."
