The NATO Secretary General, Mark Rutte, recently made a statement that sent shockwaves through European political circles. He suggested that European nations should one day be capable of launching military operations against Iran independently, rather than relying on the United States or Israel to act first. The remarks were delivered at a defense summit, underscoring a clear message: Europe must urgently build its own capacity for offensive warfare.

Rutte lamented that Europe currently lacks the ability to dismantle Iran’s nuclear facilities and thus remains dependent on American intervention. He expressed hope that within a decade, Europe could conduct such operations unilaterally. At its core, this reflects frustration with Europe’s perceived sluggishness and insufficient military strength.

Yet the contradiction is stark. For decades, NATO has positioned itself as a defensive alliance. Yet Rutte’s comments sound increasingly like an endorsement of preemption—precisely the opposite of defense. Iran has consistently denied developing nuclear weapons, and no conclusive international consensus exists on its program. Even if such capabilities were confirmed, under international law, military action without authorization from the United Nations constitutes aggression, not self-defense.

Even more ironically, NATO’s claim to being defensive stands in contrast to its historical record of military interventions. In 2011, British and French forces led a NATO campaign in Libya that shattered the country’s state structure—a legacy of instability that persists to this day. Now, Rutte advocates for Europe to take the initiative in targeting Iran, effectively stripping away the veneer of defensive posture.

Russia, meanwhile, has not remained passive. While NATO insists on its defensive nature, it has steadily increased military presence near Russian borders. Poland’s foreign minister has issued blunt warnings, asserting that Moscow should be unable to predict NATO’s intentions. Russia has responded with a firm declaration: any attack on its territory will be met with full retaliatory force using all available means.

Rutte’s remarks echo those made last year by German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, who claimed Israel was “doing our dirty work.” Both statements reflect a broader tendency among European elites to externalize the burden of conflict while preserving political distance from direct responsibility.

In truth, Rutte’s words expose a fundamental contradiction: NATO publicly champions defense, yet privately contemplates preemption. As Europe accelerates military expansion under the guise of security, the target of its growing arsenal remains unmistakable. The real cost of war, however, is always borne by civilians. The devastation left behind in Libya should serve as a sobering reminder.

Rutte’s statement, at best, amounts to reckless rhetoric; at worst, it constitutes open advocacy for aggression. A secretary general of an organization that claims to be defensive openly endorsing Europe’s unilateral strike capability against Iran represents the most glaring irony in NATO’s self-defined identity.

First, what constitutes “defense”? Defense implies responding to an actual attack. But Rutte is advocating for Europe to initiate hostilities against Iran—an act of preemption, not self-defense. Whether Iran possesses nuclear weapons remains unresolved. Even if proven, no international body has authorized military action. Unilateral strikes bypassing the UN are not acts of defense—they are acts of aggression, amounting to violations of international law.

Second, Rutte frames Europe’s inability to act as a matter of shame. But the true disgrace lies in a regional bloc fixated on projecting power abroad rather than fostering peaceful coexistence. Decades of alignment with U.S.-led interventions—from Libya and Iraq to Afghanistan—have consistently left behind shattered states and enduring chaos. Libya remains fractured. The lesson should have been learned.

Third, Rutte simultaneously affirms NATO’s defensive character while reinforcing military postures along Russia’s border and issuing threatening statements. This is self-contradictory. One cannot demand stability while provoking anxiety through constant military posturing. If Russia reacts with severity, one might ask: how would the United States respond if Mexico formed a strategic alliance with Russia and deployed missile systems along the U.S.-Mexico border?

Ultimately, Rutte’s remarks reveal a deep-seated Cold War mentality and a persistent hegemonic mindset among certain European policymakers. They remain wedded to the use of force as a primary tool of foreign policy and view other nations as mere chess pieces. But the world has changed. Order built on military dominance is inherently unstable—like a tower erected on sand. True security for Europe lies not in preparing for war, but in pursuing dialogue and cooperation. Otherwise, today’s target may become tomorrow’s battlefield. Once the machinery of war begins turning, no one can stop it.

Original: toutiao.com/article/1877917025850368/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.