'착한가 나쁜가?' 트럼프, 이란 전쟁 지원 놓고 나토 동맹국 순위 매기다

The White House has reportedly created a 'naughty and nice' list for Nato allies, ranking them on contributions and support during the Iran war. This initiative aims to pressure nations that did not align with US positions, potentially impacting future military cooperation and strategic support.

Representative image (AI-generated) The White House has developed a 'naughty and nice' list of Nato countries, ranking member countries based on their contributions to the alliance and their stance during the ongoing Iran war, White House said.The move is seen as a part of the Trump administration’s broader push to pressure allies who did not support Washington’s position during the war. Watch EXPOSED: Trump’s Secret NATO Scorecard Splits Allies Into ‘Naughty Or Nice’ In Iran War Loyalty TestAccording to officials familiar with the plan, Nato members have been placed into different tiers based on defence spending, military cooperation and operational support.The assessment was reportedly prepared ahead of Nato Secretary-General Mark Rutte’s visit to Washington, with officials reviewing how each member contributes to collective security, according to Politico.The idea was floated by US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth last year. He had earlier outlined the concept of rewarding countries that meet US expectations on defence spending and military cooperation.“Model allies that step up, like Israel, South Korea, Poland, increasingly Germany, the Baltics and others, will receive our special favor,” he said. “Allies that still fail to do their part for collective defense will face consequences,” Hegseth said.The Pentagon has also reinforced this approach in its National Defense Strategy, stating that cooperation would be prioritised with allies 'doing their part' for collective defence and shared security goals.One of the diplomats said the list appeared to reflect that concept. “The White House has a naughty and nice paper so I guess the thinking is similar,” the person said, according to Politico.The assessment is also linked to recent tensions within Nato over the Iran conflict, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz crisis and US military operations. Officials said that the ranking could influence decisions on which countries are offered greater military cooperation or strategic support in future operations.The Trump administration has expressed frustration with allies who did not support US requests during the conflict, including participation in operations or access to military bases.Division among Nato membersReports suggest that countries such as Romania and Poland were more cooperative, allowing US use of air bases and logistical support during Middle East operations. Poland, already one of Nato’s highest defence spenders, also hosts around 10,000 US troops and covers most of the associated costs. Romania’s expanded Mihail Kogălniceanu Air Base has also been used for US military operations.In contrast, countries including Spain and some other Western European allies reportedly resisted or delayed US requests for assistance. Meanwhile, Baltic nations such as Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia have been consistently praised for meeting or exceeding defence spending targets.Officials said potential consequences for countries placed lower on the list could include reduced troop deployments, fewer joint exercises or changes in military sales and cooperation. However, they also acknowledged that shifting US military presence within Europe would be costly, complex and logistically difficult.One European official highlighted that even troop redeployment options would largely shift US forces between allied countries rather than remove them from Europe entirely.Limited clarity on enforcementDespite the discussion, officials have provided little clarity on how strictly the ranking system would be enforced or what specific 'rewards' or 'penalties' would look like. Some diplomats familiar with the discussions said the administration itself appears uncertain about how to operationalise the idea.A European official described the concept as still not fully developed, suggesting that while troop movement is one option, it could also end up placing more strain on US resources rather than punishing allies.The White House has, however, defended its approach. Spokesperson Anna Kelly said the US has long supported allies that now need to contribute more.“While the United States has always been there for our so-called allies, countries we protect with thousands of troops have not been there for us throughout Operation Epic Fury,” she said, referring to the Pentagon’s designation for the Iran-related operation.“President Trump has made his thoughts on this unfair dynamic clear, and as he said, the United States will remember,” she added.US Senator Roger Wicker said it was “not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision,” warning that alliances carry 'political, strategic and moral benefits' for the country.“It is not helpful when American leaders speak of our alliances with derision. We must be clear about the numerous political, strategic and moral benefits that country receives from its alliances,” Wicker said.Former officials have also questioned whether the Trump administration has the capacity to pursue such an expansive restructuring of alliance relations while managing ongoing global crises.