As the world watched Iran, why was NATO looking at Russia? [Debriefing]

The NATO summit, held amid a renewed flare-up in military hostilities between the United States and Iran, laid bare a shifting set of strategic priorities within the alliance. While all 32 member states stood united against the Russian threat, Europe collectively kept its distance from US military action against Iran — revealing what analysts are calling NATO's new calculus.

CNBC reported Wednesday that European allies at the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey, made no new pledges to support US military operations against Iran. The gathering convened just after the US carried out airstrikes on two consecutive days in response to Iranian attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, yet the summit's shared agenda centered on deterring Russia, strengthening European defense and increasing defense spending.

The omission did not reflect a belief that Iran was unimportant, but rather Europe's caution about expanding the Middle East war into a collective NATO mission.

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte called the US airstrikes against Iran "absolutely necessary" and criticized Iran for violating the truce. At the same time, he said the summit's top priority was confirming America's return to the alliance and sustaining deterrence against Russia.

European leaders reached similar conclusions. With Russia's war in Ukraine dragging on, they argued that limited military resources and fiscal capacity should be concentrated on defending the eastern flank rather than diverted to the Middle East. At the summit, member states reaffirmed a target of spending 5 percent of gross domestic product on defense and agreed to continue supporting Ukraine.

Donald Trump, however, read Europe's stance as passive disengagement.

At the summit, Trump said he was "unhappy that NATO didn't want to help us with Iran, the No. 1 state sponsor of terrorism," adding that allies "were reluctant to help us." He also disclosed that he had spoken directly with leaders of major member states including Germany, France and the United Kingdom, saying, "I really wanted to test it and see if they would step up."

When asked whether the US would defend European countries if they came under attack, Trump declined to answer directly, again saying "they didn't help us," and raised the possibility of withdrawing US troops stationed in Europe.

Yet Europe signaled that it intended to preserve NATO's internal cohesion regardless of Trump's remarks.

After the summit closed, Rutte sought to play down the friction between Trump and European leaders, saying that "allies debating openly and then coming together as one is the strength of democracy." He said the summit had served to reaffirm the United States' commitment to NATO.

Trump himself ended the gathering on a warmer note, saying there had been "a lot of love" and "tremendous unity." Member states also reaffirmed Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, the alliance's collective defense clause, and renewed their commitment to deterring Russia.

Analysts say the summit symbolically illustrated a transformation in NATO's strategic role.

A clear pattern has emerged: the Russian military threat is treated as a collective security matter requiring a unified NATO response, while the Iran question is being handled through a "coalition" model — US-led, with willing partners joining in. Some analysts also suggest the US is looking, over the longer term, to hand more of the Russia-deterrence burden to Europe while concentrating its own strategic resources on the Indo-Pacific and the Middle East.

Nicholas Burns, a Harvard University professor and former US ambassador to NATO, said in a CNBC interview that "it is important for the United States to persuade European and Gulf countries to cooperate in pressuring Iran's economy," suggesting that diplomatic and economic coordination — rather than military support — could be the more practical solution.