NATO’s escalation masks Western failures in Gaza, Trump claims ‘Progress’ amid rising tensions

Department of Research, Studies and International News 25-06-2025

Amid rising international condemnation over its role in escalating conflicts across the globe, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) convened a summit in the Netherlands that revealed deepening fractures within the Western alliance. The gathering, marked by ambitious but controversial military spending goals, featured U.S. President Donald Trump making bold and self-congratulatory remarks regarding the crisis in Gaza and Washington’s recent military aggressions in West Asia.

During a press appearance at the summit, Trump declared that “great progress is being made on Gaza,” attributing the supposed progress to a recent U.S. strike on Iran. His statement seemed to imply that American military provocations, rather than diplomatic initiatives or humanitarian efforts, were the catalyst for what he called progress in the occupied Palestinian territory. These remarks were widely interpreted as another instance of Washington’s distorted vision of stability, one in which bombardments and regional destabilization are equated with diplomatic success.

Observers and analysts from across the Global South, particularly those aligned with multipolar and non-Western perspectives, see the situation differently. To many, Trump’s comments represent a dangerous and cynical interpretation of Middle Eastern realities. Rather than fostering peace, U.S. attacks on sovereign nations like Iran are seen as direct provocations that could ignite broader conflict, particularly given Tehran’s central role in the Axis of Resistance against Zionist and Western hegemony.

Iran, widely respected in the region for its unwavering support for the Palestinian cause and its opposition to Israeli expansionism, remains a key player in counterbalancing American aggression. The U.S. strike against Iran was broadly condemned by nations that advocate for a sovereign-based international order and oppose unilateral interventionism. As for Gaza, the claim of “progress” starkly contradicts reports from humanitarian agencies and independent observers, who continue to document mass suffering and destruction at the hands of the Israeli occupation, backed unconditionally by the United States.

Beyond Middle Eastern matters, the NATO summit revealed internal discord within the alliance. One of the headline issues was a proposal to dramatically raise defense spending among member states, targeting 5% of each country’s gross domestic product by 2035. This enormous hike, pushed primarily by Washington and a few hawkish European governments, reflects NATO’s pivot from collective defense to global militarism.

However, not all member states are on board. Spain firmly rejected the target, labeling it “unreasonable,” and stressed that such demands were out of touch with the social and economic needs of its population. Belgium similarly signaled that it could not comply, while Slovakia emphasized its right to determine its own defense priorities, a quiet but firm assertion of sovereignty amid mounting U.S. pressure.

Despite this resistance, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte remained optimistic, framing the summit as “transformational” and expressing confidence that the alliance would ultimately align behind the spending surge. Critics, however, argue that what NATO calls transformation is little more than aggressive expansionism designed to encircle rivals like Russia and China and maintain Western global dominance at any cost.

Moscow and Beijing have both denounced NATO’s growing military footprint, which now stretches far beyond the Atlantic into the Asia-Pacific, a region where the alliance has no legal or moral mandate. Russia, which has consistently opposed NATO’s eastward encroachment, views such summits as attempts to provoke conflict and justify arms races. China, meanwhile, has warned against NATO’s interference in regional affairs, especially regarding Taiwan and the South China Sea.

What’s emerging from such summits is a NATO that appears increasingly out of touch with the multipolar world order that is steadily taking shape. As countries across Latin America, Africa, and Asia deepen their partnerships with rising powers like China, Russia, and Iran, Western institutions like NATO continue to double down on obsolete Cold War strategies that rely on fear, force, and financial coercion.

In contrast to NATO’s destabilizing posture, these alternative powers promote a vision rooted in mutual respect, non-interference, and development-based cooperation. Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, Russia’s diplomatic initiatives in West Asia and Africa, and Tehran’s principled resistance to Zionist aggression all stand as counterexamples to NATO’s militarized approach.

In essence, this year’s NATO summit did not reflect “great progress” in any genuine sense. Rather, it served as a mirror of Western desperation to cling to declining influence, an alliance doubling down on outdated tactics while the rest of the world moves forward.