Exclusive – In New Book, Dubai Ruler Says Offered Saddam Asylum in UAE

Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. (AFP)
Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. (AFP)
TT

Exclusive – In New Book, Dubai Ruler Says Offered Saddam Asylum in UAE

Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. (AFP)
Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum. (AFP)

Vice President of the United Arab Emirates and Ruler of Dubai Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum reveals in a new book set to be published Monday that he had offered late Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein asylum in the UAE prior to the US invasion of 2003.

“Dubai is your second city,” he told the former ruler, recalled Sheikh Mohammed in his book “My Story … 50 Stories in 50 Years.” Saddam, however, refused the offer.

Sheikh Mohammed speaks of his life, work and responsibilities, touching on Libya, Syria and Lebanon in excerpts exclusively published by Asharq Al-Awsat.

Beirut
He recalled that he visited Beirut at a young age with his siblings. “I was fascinated by it when I was young and have grown deeply sad over its fate,” he said. “In the early 1960s, its streets were clean, neighborhoods beautiful, its markets modern. It was a source of inspiration for me. I had a dream for Dubai to become like Beirut some day.”

Unfortunately, Lebanon “has been fragmented and divided along sectarian lines. Beirut is no longer the Beirut I knew and Lebanon is no longer the same,” lamented Sheikh Mohammed.

He said that two major developments in Lebanon have been imprinted in his memory. The first, he said was the eruption of the country’s civil war on April 13, 1975. The 15-year conflict left more than 150,000 people dead and 300,000 wounded and Lebanon incurred more than $25 billion in damages.

No sooner, had the first bullet been fired that violence spread throughout Beirut and the capital was soon divided along sectarian lines. “This was the beginning of the end,” said Sheikh Mohammed.

None of the efforts exerted by Sheikh Zayed succeeded in bringing together the rivals to negotiations. “Along with my father, I used to help him in the negotiations, but we started to despair due to the ongoing failure. Comprehensive Arab intervention took place to ensure that this beautiful country would not be destroyed,” he added.

June 1976 witnessed a changing point in the civil war through Syria’s intervention.

He recalled the convening of Arab summits in Riyadh and Cairo in 1976 that culminated in the formation of an Arab Deterrent Force of which the UAE was a part of and that was aimed at reaching a ceasefire in Lebanon.

Sheikh Mohammed said that only “temporary solutions” were reached at the Arab summits and the “roots of the problems were still buried below the surface.”

“Those were burdensome days,” said Sheikh Mohammed. “I did everything in my power to prepare my men … I told them that ‘we are headed for peace, not war, in order to save a friendly and brotherly people and not to serve sectarian interests.’”

“I cannot describe the horrors of war. From my own experience in fighting, I can say that it is not the solution for anything,” he stated.

The second most remarkable memory he has of Lebanon took place in 1982 with the Israeli invasion of the country. The development turned the country into an open battle between the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Syria and Israel.

“Even though the invasion, which began in June under the command of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon, was expected, its horrors were not,” said Sheikh Mohammed.

After two months of fighting, a ceasefire was reached that culminated with the PLO’s withdrawal from Beirut to Tunisia. Despite this withdrawal, Sharon insisted that some “2,000 terrorists” remained in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut and so it was after the departure of the last Palestinian fighter that the Israeli army occupied West Beirut on September 15. This was followed with the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps massacre on September 16 and 18 that left hundreds of innocent civilians dead.

“I have never accepted the idea of killing and shedding of blood,” said Sheikh Mohammed. “I have never understood why such things happen in our world. I had kept in touch with all partners in the region. I knew that a massacre was going to happen. When I saw the images of the victims, especially the women and children, I realized that our efforts have been in vain.”

Many years later, “Lebanon is still, unfortunately, a pawn many players are toying with. The Lebanese youth are still paying the price of regional conflicts and Lebanon is still an arena for settling never-ending conflicts and scores,” he added.

Invasion of a brother
“The invasion of Kuwait on August 2, 1990 was a shock … I relayed the news to my older brother Sheikh Maktoum. I then declared a state of emergency for all armed and security forces. I spoke to Sheikh Zayed and witnessed his anger and sorrow. How could Saddam do such a thing? What was his next move?” recalled Sheikh Mohammed.

“We never imaged that Saddam would dare to invade a brotherly neighboring country that had a history in standing by his side. Saddam’s move was a changing point for the entire region.”

“We received tens of thousands of Kuwaitis and opened our hotels and residential buildings for them. Many of our people opened their houses to them.”

He recalled how the UAE’s ports became harbors for the forces of Operation Desert Storm that was launched by US forces on January 16, 1991 to liberate Kuwait from Iraq. Emirati forces also helped support the coalition to liberate Kuwait.

“I personally visited the Desert Storm command center several times,” said Sheikh Mohammed. “My mission was to limit the number of civilian casualties. Neither the Kuwaiti people nor the Iraqi people wanted the invasion. It was reckless act. I was keen to ensure that the people did not pay the price for this stupidity.”

Saddam was forced to withdraw his forces after a successful military operation and the “Emirati forces had the honor to be the first troops to enter Kuwait to liberate it. Had the war gone any longer, we would have paid with our lives to see its liberation.”

“The invasion ended with a humiliating withdrawal of the Iraqi forces. It was not the end, however. It was the beginning of a new phase in the region marked by the collapse of its major countries and fragmentation of great armies. The invasion of Kuwait was the major historic error that forever altered the shape of the region.”

No one wins in war
“I still remember the end of the exhausting war between Iraq and Iran that left more than a million people dead.” When a war ends, its memory lingers for years to come, said Sheikh Mohammed.

“At the time, Saddam was at the peak of his pride and glory. I still remember how he frankly expressed his reservations against me to Sheikh Zayed. He said I leaned too much to the West and did not treat Arabs properly.”

“Sheikh Zayed then asked me to meet with Saddam as was his habit to settle any differences that could affect our interests,” he added.

The meeting eventually took place and “after some pleasantries, Saddam charged that he had a report that implicates me in supporting Iran in various ways. He then placed the report in front of me.”

“I answered him that I did not need a report and that I was sitting right there with him,” he said. “‘If you mean arms shipments, then I challenge anyone to prove that. If you mean food aid shipments, then, yes. You do not need these reports because our ships go there and to Iraq as well,’ I replied.”

“Saddam was shocked at my words because they were bold. He was used to hearing what he wanted to. Perhaps my response was surprising to him because he had formed a weak impression of me.”

“We became friends after this confrontation,” revealed Sheikh Mohammed.

“This was followed by Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait and bridges of communication then collapsed. In the world of politics, however, you must leave one small channel open for times of crisis. After Kuwait’s liberation in February 1991, the Gulf was treating its wounds and rebuilding what was destroyed.”

“Iraq grew weary of wars and Saddam, who had suffered successive defeats, slept with one eye open. In 2003, the Americans returned to the Middle East. They wanted to build a model that meets their own vision in wake of the September 11, 2001 attacks that altered their view of the region and changed their priorities.”

“I knew that the invasion of Iraq was among President George W. Bush’s goals. We tried to dissuade him against invading Iraq. I asked him to maintain his efforts to support the Iraqi people by building schools and hospitals and paving roads. I knew, however, that he had already made up his mind to resort to force.”

“I asked the Americans to give us a chance to act accordingly. I then asked them: ‘What do you want from Saddam?’ I sensed that the region was on the verge of war and I was prepared to do anything to avoid it for the sake of the people. The Americans replied that they wanted to search for weapons of mass destruction.”

“I knew that the consequences of the war would be felt in the entire region, especially Iraq. It would be destructive. I tried to convince them to task Emiratis to carry out negotiates. We Arabs are alike in our traditions and understand how Saddam and his like think.”

“I was determined to personally visit Saddam… We had a clear and frank discussion. We spoke of everything I agreed with him on and others I did not. I reminded him of the ghost of war and I knew that I was addressing a man who had spent most of his life waging wars. It was obvious that he could not win the war against the Americans and that if he did not do anything to avert the impending invasion, Iraq would be lost. I tried to use reason with him.”

“I told him that if he was ultimately forced to leave Iraq, Dubai was his second city and he was always welcome there. He looked at me and said: ‘But Sheikh Mohammed, I am speaking about saving Iraq, not myself.’ I held him in much higher regard after he said this.”

A five-hour tense and frank meeting ensued with a visibly agitated Saddam.

“When the meeting ended, he escorted me to my vehicle and bid me farewell. I heard that this was not usual of him,” said Sheikh Mohammed. Sheikh Zayed offered Saddam asylum in Abu Dhabi in a last-ditch effort to avoid the invasion. It was in vain, as the US and Britain soon invaded and Iraq was again left to bleed.

“Saddam miscalculated. He believed that planting fear and terror and using violence were the best way to rule. Everyone around him feared him and no one ever had the courage to tell him of his military’s real capabilities,” he recalled.

Bashar… Syria
“I remember how Bashar Assad visited Dubai in the late 1990s. His father, Hafez, was still in power and was possibly living his final days. It was only a matter of time before Bashar came to power. I wanted to spend more time with him away from the prying eyes of his entourage.”

“He joined me in my car, which I drove myself, and we headed to one of the major department stores for a stroll…. No one bothered us. We spoke of the future of technology and its role in development. He showed great interest in investing in technology for serving his country. He assured me that he will make changes in Syria. I forged a good relationship with him after that day.”

“A few years later, he again visited Dubai. This time as President Bashar Assad. He asked me how the government of Dubai rules its city. He had a great desire to develop the administration and government in Syria. I spoke to him a lot about Dubai and its openness and how our governance focuses on the private sector… I told him that we hoped to build a model for the Arab world. He expressed his deep admiration for Dubai, saying that he wanted to replicate the experience in Syria.”

“Indeed, Bashar Assad tried during the early years of his rule to open up the Syrian economy. He allowed the people to open bank accounts in foreign currencies and invited foreign investors to Syria. I remember sending a delegation to inspect real estate investment opportunities there. They came back to me with good ideas.”

“After that, Bashar started living in a different world as he watched his country drown in blood.”

I want Dubai in Africa
Sheikh Mohammed recalled his relations with late Libyan ruler Moammar al-Gaddafi.

“I remember how he once called me to tell me that he wanted to build a new Dubai in Libya and for it to act as the economic capital of Africa.”

“After the US invasion of Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that it alleged that Saddam possessed, Gaddafi came out before the world to declare that Libya had a nuclear program.” He asked that it be removed, paving the way for prosperity in his country.

“We were among those whom he approached. He asked me to help him build a new Dubai in Libya as part of his drive to become open to the world.”

Sheikh Mohammed recalled how he dispatched an envoy, Mohammed al-Qarqawi, who was then head of his executive office. He arrived in Libya and was escorted to Gaddafi’s residence in Tripoli. “There, he saw the Libyan leader sitting in a large office and surfing the internet in a way that showed that he had little knowledge of what he was doing.”

“After his little show, Gaddafi told him that he greatly admired what Sheikh Mohammed has done in Dubai. ‘I want to do the same thing in Libya. I am asking you to invest in Libya.’ …. He gave the impression that he was not very aware of the world and history. He seemed to be surrounded by a team that kept facts from him, either out of fear or deliberately. I suspect the former. He spoke at length and tended to ramble. He said that he did not admire any state or any president. He spoke his mind very firmly in a way that did not broach argument or discussion. He did not speak like a leader.”

“After receiving Qarqawi’s report, I personally went to Tripoli. On the first day, we went to the Old City, It makes you sad. How can a country this rich be like this? Sewage was running in the streets and garbage was strewn everywhere. At its worst point in the 1950s, when water was scarce and people did not have electricity, Dubai was never this miserable.”

“I then visited Gaddafi in a tent in Sirte city. Just like last time, he spoke for a long time. Later that night, we headed to a square in Tripoli, but we were met with hysterical crowds after someone leaked the news of our visit.”

The security entourage was forced to use violence to disperse the people. “I never wanted them to disperse them in such a way.”

“Afterwards, Gaddafi wanted to show me the Jabal al-Akhdar region in northeastern Tripoli. We road a plane with his son Seif al-Islam and head of internal security and military intelligence Abdullah al-Senussi, who was known as a violent man.”

“As the plane took off, Senussi turned to me to inform me that it had been years since he last rode an aircraft. I asked how come, and he replied that he was constantly a target for attacks. Silence then fell over the plane as each of us weighed the words he had just uttered. Did he want his first plane ride to be with us?”

“Seif al-Islam then started talking and he seemed more learned and informed than his father. He said that he always thought of the type of economy that his father had adopted. It was neither socialist nor communist, not even capitalist. He said that he had spoken to his father about the importance of returning the land to the people and for Libya to be more open to the world.”

“The visit ended and the Libyan people remained in our hearts. We wished to help, but matters were not all right. We withdrew from talks about a new project when we realized that we were running around in circles. The horizon was clouded with corruption and we were going to be used a propaganda in his media machine.”

“Gaddafi did not desire change, he only wished it. Change does not need speeches, but action,” stated Sheikh Mohammed.



Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
TT

Iran Leaders Join Crowds on Tehran’s Streets to Project Control in Wartime

An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)
An Iranian flag is seen on a residential building that was damaged by recent strikes at Vahdat town in Karaj, southwest of Tehran on April 3, 2026. (AFP)

After more than a month of being stalked by targeted assassinations, Iran's leadership has adopted a new tactic to show it is still in control - with senior officials walking openly in the streets among small crowds who have gathered in support of the regime.

In recent days, Iran's president and foreign minister have separately mixed with groups of several hundred people in central Tehran. On Tuesday, state television aired footage of the two posing for selfies, talking to members of the public and shaking hands with supporters who had gathered in public areas.

According to insiders and analysts, the appearances are part of a calculated effort by Iran's theocratic leadership to project resilience and authority — not only over the vital Strait of Hormuz but also over the population — despite a sustained US-Israeli campaign aimed at "obliterating" it.

One insider close to the hardline establishment said such public outings are intended to show that the regime is "unshaken by strikes and that it remains in control and vigilant" as the war grinds on.

The US-Israeli war ‌on Iran began on ‌February 28 with the killing of veteran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and several senior military ‌commanders ⁠in waves of ⁠strikes that have since continued to target top officials.

Iran's new Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, has not been seen in public since taking over on March 8 from his father. Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi, meanwhile, was removed from Israel's hit list amid mediation efforts last month, including by Pakistan, to bring Tehran and Washington together for talks to end the war.

Talks aimed at ending the war have since appeared to have petered out, as Tehran brands US peace proposals "unrealistic". Against that backdrop, recent public appearances by President Masoud Pezeshkian and Araqchi appear designed to project defiance, if not a convincing display of public support.

A senior Iranian source said officials' public presence demonstrates that "the establishment is not intimidated by Israel's targeted killing of top Iranian ⁠figures".

Asked whether Iran's foreign minister or president were on any sort of kill list, an Israeli ‌military spokesperson, Nadav Shoshani, said on Friday he would not "speak about specific personnel."

NIGHTLY RALLIES TO ‌SHOW RESILIENCE

Despite widespread destruction, Tehran appears emboldened by surviving weeks of intense US-Israeli attacks, firing on Gulf countries hosting US troops and demonstrating its ability ‌to effectively block the Strait of Hormuz.

On Wednesday, US President Donald Trump vowed more aggressive strikes on Iran, without offering a timeline ‌for ending hostilities. Tehran responded by warning the United States and Israel that "more crushing, broader and more destructive" attacks were in store.

Encouraged by clerical rulers, supporters of the regime take to the streets each night, filling public squares to show loyalty even as bombs rain down across the country.

Analysts say the establishment is also seeking to raise the "political and reputational" cost of the strikes at a time when civilian casualties are deeply disturbing for Iranians.

Omid Memarian, ‌a senior Iran analyst at DAWN, a Washington-based think tank, said the decision to send officials into gatherings reflects a layered strategy, including an effort to sustain the morale of core supporters ⁠at a moment of acute pressure.

"The system ⁠relies heavily on this base; if its supporters withdraw from public space, its ability to project control and authority weakens significantly," Memarian said.

Speaking to state television, some in the crowds voice unwavering loyalty to Iran's leadership; others oppose the bombing of their country regardless of politics; and some have a stake in the system, including government employees, students and others whose livelihoods are tied to it.

Hadi Ghaemi, head of the New York-based Center for Human Rights in Iran, said the establishment is using such loyal crowds as human shields to raise the cost of any assassination attempts.

"By being in the middle of large crowds they have protections that would make Israeli-American attacks against them very bloody and generate sympathy worldwide," he said.

POTENTIAL PROTESTERS STAY OFF STREETS AT NIGHT

The Islamic republic emerged from a 1979 revolution backed by millions of Iranians. But decades of rule marked by corruption, repression and mismanagement have thinned that support, alienating many ordinary people.

While there has been little sign so far of anti-government protests that erupted in January and abated after a deadly crackdown, the establishment has adopted harsh measures, such as arrests, executions and large-scale deployment of security forces, to prevent any sparks of dissent.

Rights groups have warned about "rushed executions" during wartime after Iran hanged at least seven political prisoners during the war.

"Many potential protesters are frightened by the continuing presence of armed men and violent crowds in the streets and largely stay at home once darkness falls," Ghaemi said.


'Metals of the Future': Copper and Silver Flow Beneath Poland's Surface

Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
TT

'Metals of the Future': Copper and Silver Flow Beneath Poland's Surface

Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP
Smelter workers process copper at the Glogow plant in southwestern Poland, owned by KGHM. Wojtek RADWANSKI / AFP

Thousands of meters beneath the ground, amid suffocating heat, lies one of the keys to Poland's rumbling mining sector -- and the world economy.

Whitish ore, rich in copper and silver, is extracted from the country's depths and exported around the world to fuel technological and energy transitions.

"These are the metals of the future," Ariel Wojciuszkiewicz, a geologist at the Polkowice-Sieroszowice mine in the west of the country, tells AFP, noting that copper and silver are "indispensable for electronic equipment, electric cars, and renewable energy installations".

Driven by the rise of artificial intelligence, renewable energies, and global defense needs, demand for these metals is expected to keep increasing in the future, with copper even being referred to as "red gold" and a "barometer" for world economic development.

Poland, responsible for as much as half of Europe's supply, is one of the industry's key players.

Equipped with a helmet and an emergency breathing device, Wojciuszkiewicz leads AFP journalists through the Polkowice-Sieroszowice mine -- one of three sites operated by KGHM, the Polish metals giant, which also owns local smelters and companies in the Americas.

The 24-hour operation runs at a constant roar as machines grind rock at deafening volumes, its tunnels stretching for hundreds of kilometers beneath Poland's surface.

The world's second-largest silver producer, the KGHM group also supplies between 40 percent and 50 percent of the copper produced in Europe.

Last year, it ranked eighth worldwide in terms of copper extraction volume, behind global giants such as BHP Group, Glencore Plc and Rio Tinto, according to industry statistics.

Global copper demand, already high, is expected to climb by over 40 percent by 2040, according to a 2025 UN Report.

To meet this demand, "it might take 80 new mines and 250 billion dollars in investments by 2030," the organization estimates.

The International Energy Agency (IEA), however, predicts that supply will lag 30 percent behind demand by as early as 2035.

- 1,200 degrees Celsius -

Dependence on copper is growing exponentially across the world economy's most innovative sectors.

"We don't realize how much we are surrounded by copper on all sides," Piotr Krzyzewski, KGHM vice president in charge of finance, explains to AFP.

"An electric car contains 80 kg of copper, compared with 20 kg in a conventional one," he notes, while "a wind turbine contains between four and ten tons of copper per megawatt."

Farther away, at the Glogow smelter, two workers in protective suits, armed with long lances, open huge furnaces where the ore is melted.

They work diligently as sparks fly from metal heated to 1,200C.

Several processing stages later, 99.99 percent pure copper plates, each weighing more than a hundred kilos, are shipped all over the world.

Last year, the KGHM group as a whole generated more than 36 billion zlotys ($9.7 billion) in revenue. Copper production reached 710,000 tons and silver production 1,347 tons, according to the group's annual report, published at the end of March.

No less than half of the silver is used in industry, mainly for electronics, solar panels, and medical applications. The rest goes to jewelery or serves as a safety net and financial asset.

But it is copper, now an irreplaceable metal for the economy, that has become the object of global strategic contention.

"Copper is on the strategic list of critical metals in Europe, the United States, and China," Krzyzewski tells AFP.

The metal's impact on geopolitics is already being noted in real time.

In July, US President Donald Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on copper, eventually limiting the measure to products made with the metal.

To justify his decision, he invoked the need to "defend national security".

"Copper is the second most used material by the Department of Defense!" he said.

- Record prices -

In 2025, copper prices jumped 41.7 percent, before hitting a record high of $14,527.50 a ton in January of this year.

Even in the face of the war in the Middle East and the slowdown of the global economy, the price remains high at about 12,000 dollars per ton.

In this uncertain context, Poland's subsoil appears to be a major asset for the energy sovereignty of the Old Continent.

"It's no longer about the security of our country alone, but the security of all of Europe," Krzyzewski says, adding that KGHM's resources "are still estimated to last for at least 40 years," not counting new exploration and concessions.

But mining consumes enormous amounts of water, making it subject to the effects of global warming and drought.


Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
TT

Trump’s Anger Over Iran Thrusts NATO into Fresh Crisis

A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)
A NATO flag flutters at the Tapa military base, Estonia April 30, 2023. (Reuters)

The NATO alliance has in recent years survived existential challenges - ranging from the war in Ukraine to multiple bouts of pressure and insults from US President Donald Trump, who has questioned its core mission and threatened to seize Greenland.

But it is the US-Israeli war with Iran, thousands of miles from Europe, that has nearly broken the 76-year-old bloc and threatens to leave it in its weakest state since its creation, say analysts and diplomats.

Trump, enraged that European countries have declined to send their navies to open up the Strait of Hormuz to global shipping following the start of the air war on Feb 28, has declared he is considering withdrawing from the alliance.

"Wouldn't you if you were me?" Trump asked Reuters in a Wednesday interview.

In a speech on Wednesday night, Trump criticized US allies but stopped short of condemning NATO, as many experts thought he might.

But combined with other barbs aimed at Europeans in recent weeks, Trump's comments have provoked unprecedented concern that the US will not come to the aid of European allies should they be attacked, whether or not Washington formally walks away.

The result, say analysts and diplomats, is that the alliance created in the Cold War that has long served as the basic fabric of European security is fraying and the mutual defense agreement at its core is no longer taken as a given.

"This is the worst place (NATO) has been since it was founded," said Max Bergmann, a former State Department official who now leads the Europe, Russia, and Eurasia Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

"It's really hard to ‌think of anything that ‌even comes close."

That reality is sinking in for Europeans, who have counted on NATO as a bulwark against an increasingly assertive Russia.

As recently ‌as February, ⁠NATO Secretary-General Mark ⁠Rutte had dismissed the idea of Europe defending itself without the US as a "silly thought." Now, many officials and diplomats consider it the default expectation.

"NATO remains necessary, but we must be capable of thinking of NATO without the Americans," said General Francois Lecointre, who served as France's armed forces chief from 2017 to 2021.

"Whether it should even continue to be called NATO - North Atlantic Treaty Organization - is a valid question."

White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said: “President Trump has made his disappointment with NATO and other allies clear, and as the President emphasized, ‘the United States will remember.’”

A NATO representative did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

THIS TIME IT'S DIFFERENT

NATO has been challenged before, not least during Trump's first term from 2017 to 2021, when he also considered withdrawing from the alliance.

But while many European officials until recently believed that Trump could be kept on board with pomp and flattery, fewer now hold that belief, according to conversations with dozens of former and current US and European officials.

Trump and his officials have expressed frustration over what they see as NATO's unwillingness to help the United ⁠States in a time of need, including by not directly assisting with the Strait of Hormuz and by restricting US use of some airfields and ‌airspace. US officials have declared NATO cannot be a "one-way street".

European officials counter that they have not received US requests for specific ‌assets for a mission to open the strait and complain that Washington has been inconsistent about whether such a mission would operate during or after the war.

"It's a terrible situation for NATO to be in," said ‌Jamie Shea, a former senior NATO official who is now a senior fellow at the Friends of Europe think tank.

"It is a blow to the allies who, since Trump returned to ‌the White House, have worked hard to show that they are willing and able to take more responsibility (for their own defense)."

Trump's latest comments follow other signs of an increasingly unsteady alliance.

Those include his stepped-up threats in January to wrest Greenland away from Denmark and recent moves by the US that Europeans see as particularly accommodating toward Russia, which NATO defines as its principal security threat.

The administration has remained essentially mum amid reports that Moscow has provided targeting data for Iran to attack US assets in the Middle East and has lifted sanctions on Russian oil in a bid to ease global energy prices that have spiked during the war.

At a meeting of G7 foreign ministers ‌near Paris last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Kaja Kallas, the foreign policy chief of the European Union, had a tense exchange, according to five people familiar with the matter, underlining the increasingly fraught transatlantic relationship.

Kallas asked when US patience with Russian President Vladimir ⁠Putin would run out over Ukraine peace negotiations, prompting Rubio ⁠to respond with irritation that the US was trying to end the war while also providing support to Ukraine, but the EU was welcome to mediate if it wanted to.

NO GOING BACK

Legally, Trump may lack the authority to withdraw from NATO. Under a law passed in 2023, a US president cannot exit the alliance without the consent of two-thirds of the US Senate, a nearly impossible threshold.

But analysts say that, as commander-in-chief, Trump can decide whether the US military will defend NATO members. Declining to do so could imperil the alliance without a formal withdrawal.

To be sure, not everyone sees the current crisis as existential. One French diplomat described the president's rhetoric as a passing temper tantrum.

Trump has changed his position on NATO before.

In 2024, he said on the campaign trail that he would encourage Putin to attack NATO members that do not pay their fair share on defense. By the last annual NATO summit, in June 2025, the alliance was in his good graces, with Trump delivering a speech effusively praising European leaders as people who "love their countries."

Next week, Rutte, the NATO secretary-general, who has a strong relationship with Trump, is set to visit Washington in an effort to change Trump's view once again.

Analysts say European nations have good reason to keep the US engaged in NATO despite doubts over whether Trump would come to their defense. Among other reasons, the US military provides a range of capabilities NATO can't easily replace, such as satellite intelligence.

Even if Trump and the Europeans find a way to stay together in NATO, diplomats, analysts and officials say, the transatlantic alliance that has been central to the global order since World War Two may never be the same.

"I do think we're turning the page of 80 years of working together," said Julianne Smith, the US ambassador to NATO under Democratic President Joe Biden.

"I don't think it means the end of the transatlantic relationship, but we're on the cusp of something that's going to have a different look and feel to it."