Ex-NATO military chief questions U.S. strategic success in Iran operation

Rob Bauer, who until January 2025 held the top military post at NATO, sat down in Madrid this week with a straightforward assessment: the United States did not achieve what it set out to accomplish when it launched airstrikes against Iran on February 28 alongside Israel. The retired Dutch admiral's skepticism cuts deeper than simple second-guessing. He pointed to a fundamental problem—the operation's actual objectives have never been clearly stated. Over time, he said, he has heard seven or eight different versions of what the campaign was meant to accomplish.

The ambiguity matters because it makes success impossible to measure. "The question is whether the actions of the United States actually produced what it wanted to achieve," Bauer explained during an interview at the Expansión International Forum in Madrid. "And we don't know, because we don't know exactly what the purpose of the operation was." Without clarity on aims, there is no way to judge results. What can be said, in his view, is that the political objectives the U.S. government outlined when it attacked Iran have not materialized. In several respects, the situation is now more difficult than it was before the military campaign began.

Bauer noted that Iranian leadership has grown more extreme, not less. The country's leaders are unlikely to back down anytime soon, despite what American planners may have hoped. "Perhaps they will yield at some point, but for now they have not," he said. The comparison he drew was instructive: Iran, unlike Venezuela, is fighting for its fundamental existence and its vision of itself as a nation—a struggle that has defined the country for fifty years. That kind of existential commitment does not dissolve under military pressure.

The admiral also addressed the diplomatic friction that followed Spain and Italy's refusal to allow U.S. forces to use their bases for the Iran strikes. Some in Washington expressed disappointment at being denied. Bauer defended the European allies' position. NATO as an organization was never involved in the Iran operation. It was a bilateral U.S.-Israeli decision. Because the mission fell outside NATO's collective framework, European nations had no obligation to provide bases, overflight rights, or any other support. "It was not a decision of thirty-two nations to go to Iran," Bauer said. "It was a decision of the United States to attack Iran, together with Israel." The U.S. had not even briefed its European allies on the military plans beforehand, leaving countries like Spain and Britain to make their own sovereign choices about what cooperation to permit.

Bauer's broader message about NATO itself was one of reassurance. Despite President Trump's frequent verbal attacks on the alliance and his unpredictable rhetoric, the organization remains stable and enjoys bipartisan support in the U.S. Congress. Both Republicans and Democrats view Russia as a threat and back NATO's continued existence. The alliance has weathered worse storms—the Cyprus dispute between Turkey and Greece, France's withdrawal from NATO's military structure—and emerged stronger. NATO has grown from twelve members to thirty-two, a fact Bauer cited as evidence that nations see real benefit in membership. Sweden and Finland joined recently. Spain itself joined in 1982 for good reason.

He warned, however, that a U.S. military attack on Greenland, the autonomous Danish territory, would be catastrophic for NATO. "That's why it didn't happen, because ultimately Americans are not foolish," he said. The U.S. has strategic interests in a stable Arctic, a secure Atlantic, and a secure Europe. Those interests align with maintaining the transatlantic bond.

On the idea of building a European defense structure independent of NATO—a European army—Bauer expressed puzzlement. Nearly all EU member states already belong to NATO. Individual nations remain sovereign; they can withdraw troops they have contributed to NATO operations at any time. What Europe lacks is not institutional structure but sufficient military capacity and personnel. The solution, in his view, is for European nations to deepen their commitment to NATO, acquire more equipment and capabilities, and build the strength to act independently of the United States when necessary. "If we do what we have agreed to in NATO, European nations and Canada will be more capable," he said. Breaking away to create parallel structures would only weaken the continent.