As leaders gather for the high-stakes NATO Summit in Ankara this week, the trans-Atlantic alliance stands at a historic crossroads, confronted by two defining crises: the Russia-Ukraine War and the simmering confrontation between the U.S. and Iran.
What critics previously decried as a widening chasm between Washington and Brussels is instead coalescing into a sharp, transaction-based realism, despite some headline-grabbing bickering between President Donald Trump and allied partners. If this summit yields a successful realignment, Trump may find himself uniquely positioned to fulfill both his domestic and international agendas.
Trump is expected to use the Ankara Summit to formalize a rigid new division of labor. His message to Europe is clear: If you want the United States to protect you from Russia in the East and maintain our support for the proposed $80 billion package for Ukraine, you must backstop our logistics, secure your own skies from Middle Eastern missiles, and police the waters off your own southern doorstep.
Such a new framework can help Trump secure two major breakthroughs from the summit: first, presenting a definitive ultimatum to Russian President Vladimir Putin, and second, forging a powerful coalition to “box out” Iran.
The trans-Atlantic grand bargain
For decades, the American complaint regarding NATO has boiled down to a single issue: burden-sharing. Now, that complaint has transformed into a concrete policy framework, often described as “NATO 3.0.”
The timing could not be better for such a strategic transition in Europe’s defense. With Putin now deeply mired in the mud of Ukraine, Russia scarcely possesses the conventional power to threaten the rest of Europe. As long as Ukraine receives consistent, robust backing from the European Union to eventually wear Putin out, Europe will remain secure from Russian aggression for years to come.
It is self-evident that Europe should shoulder its own defense, a shift that will ultimately prove more sustainable and reliable. European leaders are already prepared to showcase unprecedented progress toward a historic 5% GDP defense spending target by 2035. In exchange, they expect Trump to lock in the $80 billion annual aid package for Ukraine, ensuring a predictable firewall against Russian expansion while freeing up American strategic focus.
This new division of labor will establish Europe as the conventional shield of the West, handling regional defense and security on its own periphery. For Trump, this represents an immense domestic win. It satisfies his “America First” constituency by reducing the financial and military burden on American taxpayers, all while maintaining the integrity of the world’s most powerful security alliance.
The two cards facing Putin
A unified NATO 3.0 would embolden Trump at the geopolitical poker table, giving him two powerful cards to play against Putin: the newly structured alliance and the upcoming U.S. midterm elections. Trump can use this leverage to directly pressure Moscow to accept an “as-is” ceasefire, freezing the front lines without permitting further territorial expansion.
If Putin refuses to cooperate, Trump can warn him that a hostile, post-midterm U.S. Congress, combined with an energized European defense apparatus, will legally compel an even greater wave of advanced military support to Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russia’s domestic economy is under severe strain from Ukraine’s deep strikes on its oil infrastructure, and its legacy Soviet armor yards are rapidly depleting.
Putin needs to understand that a ceasefire brokered by Trump right now might be his best and last exit ramp before asymmetric economic, military, and political pressures finally break the camel’s back. In this sense, Trump’s ceasefire offer functions more like an ultimatum than a proposal.
The three-pronged strategy for Iran
While Europe maintains a strict geographic boundary against out-of-theater conflicts, Trump can still forge a sophisticated, three-card strategy to handle Tehran, utilizing both the threat of overwhelming force and the promise of economic relief.
The first element is the shadow coalition threat. Iran understands that it does not need to worry about a formal NATO operation, which would inevitably be bottlenecked by European political consensus. Instead, Tehran is deeply deterred by an independent coalition leveraging the core components of the G7 — the United States, the United Kingdom, and France — acting as a joint maritime and air task force, while Germany and Italy backstop critical in-theater bases, and Japan provides vital naval mine-sweeping support.
Tehran knows that these heavy-hitting nations possess overlapping command structures, shared intelligence networks, and unmatched naval and air power. If the provisional peace agreement signed between Washington and Tehran breaks down, the U.S. can simply deploy this coalition to enforce a crippling blockade while launching independent, deep surgical strikes.
As an incentive for compliance, Trump possesses a second, powerful diplomatic card centered on regime survival. If Iran plays by the rules, adheres to international maritime law, and ceases its regional proxy operations, Trump can leverage his influence with Israel to guarantee that there will be no targeted decapitation strikes against Iran’s new leadership. For a regime obsessed with internal stability, this is a massive geopolitical concession.
RUSSIA IS STRIKING CIVILIANS BECAUSE IT’S LOSING. TRUMP SHOULD USE THIS MOMENT
The third card is economic leverage. Once Iran completely surrenders its nuclear aspirations and relinquishes its enriched material, Washington can consider unfreezing Iran’s massive overseas assets. This offers Tehran an exit ramp from economic isolation, allowing it to re-enter global energy markets and stabilize its domestic economy.
Setting the expectation, the Ankara NATO Summit has the potential to mark the birth of a highly transactional, hyper-efficient Western alignment — as long as Trump and NATO leaders can better manage their differences. Armed with a revitalized alliance, a structured coalition threat, and clear economic leverage, the U.S. will possess the exact tools necessary to force pauses in both Ukraine and the Middle East — proving that global stability can be achieved through hard-nosed deal-making.
David W. Wang is a senior international business executive, geopolitical affairs consultant, analyst, and writer based in the Washington, D.C., metro area. David can be reached on X @DavidWWang203.