NATO raises military spending target to 5%; Spain opts out

NATO members agreed on Sunday to a big increase in their defence spending target to 5% of gross domestic product, as demanded by US President Donald Trump, but Spain said it did not need to comply just days before a summit in The Hague meant to be a show of unity.NATO officials had been anxious to find consensus on a summit statement on a new spending commitment ahead of Wednesday's gathering. But Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez declared on Thursday he would not commit to the 5% target.advertisementNATO boss Mark Rutte has proposed reaching the target by boosting NATO's core defence spending goal from 2% to 3.5% of GDP and spending an extra 1.5% on related items like cybersecurity and adapting roads and bridges for military vehicles.
After diplomats agreed on a compromise text on Sunday, Sanchez swiftly proclaimed Spain would not have to meet the 5% target as it would only have to spend 2.1% of GDP to meet NATO's core military requirements."We fully respect the legitimate desire of other countries to increase their defence investment, but we are not going to do so," Sanchez said in an address on Spanish television.Spain will spend 1.24% of GDP on defence in 2024, or about 17.2 billion euros ($19.8 billion), according to NATO estimates, making it the lowest spender in the alliance as a share of its economic output.advertisementNATO officials argue big defence spending increases are needed to counter a growing threat from Russia and to allow Europe to take on more responsibility for its own security as the United States shifts its military focus to China.TRUMP'S CRITICISMSanchez's stance risked setting up a summit clash with Trump, who has frequently accused European countries of not spending enough on defence and threatened not to defend them if they do not meet their targets.On Friday, Trump said Spain "has to pay what everybody else has to pay" and Madrid was "notorious" for low defence spending.However, he also suggested the U.S. should not have to meet the new target, as the U.S. had spent large amounts to protect the continent over a long period. Washington spent an estimated 3.19% of GDP on defence in 2024, NATO says.But Sanchez argued it was not necessary for Spain to meet the new target and trying to do so would mean drastic cuts on social spending such as state pensions, or tax hikes.NATO did not release the compromise summit text, which will only become official when it is endorsed by the leaders of NATO's 32 members at the summit.But diplomats said one tweak in the language on the spending commitment, from "we commit" to "allies commit," allowed Spain to say the pledge does not apply to all members.advertisementIn a letter seen by Reuters, Rutte told Sanchez that Spain would have "flexibility to determine its own sovereign path" for meeting its military capability targets agreed with NATO.A NATO diplomat said Rutte's letter was simply "an affirmation that allies chart their own course for making good on their commitments" to meet their capability targets.NATO officials have expressed scepticism that Spain can meet its military capability targets by spending just 2.1% of GDP, as Sanchez has suggested. The targets are secret, so their costs cannot be independently verified."All allies have now agreed to the summit statement – which includes the new defence investment plan," said the diplomat, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal matters.Rutte had originally proposed countries meet the new target by 2032 but the deadline in the final text is 2035, according to diplomats. There will also be a review of the target in 2029.Must Watch

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Mint

26 minutes ago

• Mint

Trump's Iran attack was ferocious. But has it actually worked?

'OPERATION MIDNIGHT HAMMER", as America called its strike on Iran, was a vast raid involving more than 125 military aircraft. It was the largest-ever strike by B-2 stealth bombers, and the first use in battle of the GBU-57, America's largest bunker-buster bomb. Seven bombers flew east over the Atlantic from Whiteman air-force base in Missouri on the 37-hour mission to Iran and back, helped by in-flight refuelling tankers and fighter jets to sweep the skies ahead of them. Decoy planes flew west over the Pacific to confuse anyone watching their movement. Dozens of Tomahawk cruise missiles were also fired at Iran from submarines. Iranian forces did not respond. The scope and scale of the operation would 'take the breath away" of most observers, boasted Pete Hegseth, the defence secretary. He was at pains to say that the attack was a 'precision strike" aimed solely at nuclear facilities. Iranian forces or civilians were not attacked. Nor was America seeking regime change. 'As President Trump has stated, the United States does not seek war. But let me be clear, we will act swiftly and decisively when our people, our partners or our interests are threatened," he said. Iran has 'every opportunity" to come to the table to negotiate a peace deal. But amid the self-congratulation, has the operation actually succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities? Donald Trump, who first announced the strikes on facilities in Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 21st (they took place on the 22nd Iranian time), declared that the programme was 'totally obliterated". General Dan Caine, chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, was more cautious. He said the bomb-damage assessment would take time to complete. The initial assessment was that 'all three sites sustained extremely severe damage and destruction". Satellite images released by Maxar, an American firm, later on June 22nd showed a series of craters on the mountainside. The B-2s dropped 14 GBU-57s on buried uranium-enrichment sites at Natanz and especially Fordow, which Mr Trump described as the 'primary" target (the image above shows Fordow before and after the attack). The Tomahawks struck Isfahan, a complex of facilities where Iran turns uranium metal into a gaseous compound and back, makes centrifuges to enrich the gas, and may have stored much of its stock of highly enriched uranium (HEU). The International Atomic Agency (IAEA) estimates that Iran had 400kg of HEU, concentrated to 60% purity, which is a short hop to weapons-grade (usually 90%). That would be enough for ten bombs, if the material were to be enriched further. Israel had already hit Natanz and Isfahan, and destroyed much of Iran's air-defence system, clearing the way for the Americans. But the site in Fordow, buried into a mountain, was beyond the reach of Israeli bombs. 'I have been there," noted Rafael Grossi, the secretary-general of the IAEA, earlier this month. 'The most sensitive things are half a mile [around 800 metres] underground." A European source gives the figure of 500 metres. Before the strikes Western officials disagreed on whether the GBU-57, or 'massive ordnance penetrator" (MOP), alone could obliterate Fordow. Some experts thought the site could be destroyed only with nuclear weapons, or by ground forces fighting their way into the site and blowing it up. In the end America used B-2s and MOPs for the job. These can burrow through 60 metres of standard concrete, but probably less if Iran was using strengthened concrete. Repeatedly striking the same spot allows them to strike deeper. David Albright, a former IAEA inspector who now leads the Institute for Science and International Security, a think-tank in Washington, argued prior to the war that Fordow was 'more vulnerable than people realise". Israel had detailed knowledge of the building's designs, he noted, including knowledge of the tunnels: 'where they start, how they zig and zag, where the ventilation system is, the power supplies". The site had only one ventilation shaft, which is visible in its plans and in historical satellite imagery showing the site's construction. Destroying that, he argued, could put Fordow out of action for 'a few years rather than a few months". One weapons expert told The Economist that the post-strike images suggest that America might have targeted Fordow's ventilation and access tunnels. Moreover, even if America did not reach all parts of the Fordow complex, the powerful blasts might have done enough to damage or destroy the machinery inside. 'Uncontrolled vibration…is a centrifuge killer," says Richard Nephew, a former State Department official who now works at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, another think-tank. 'That's why they're carefully balanced, heavily bolted down on the pads built for the purpose." Iran's IR6 centrifuges, which make up more than half of those installed at Fordow, are more robust than the much older IR1s, which make up the majority at Natanz, notes Mr Nephew. But even they would probably be affected badly by a blizzard of MOPs. If Iran had powered down the centrifuges, that would help. But the process of doing so can cause them to crash, says Mr Nephew, adding that it is 'pretty unlikely" Iran will have been able to turn off and disassemble the machines in the time available. Fordow was originally a secret project, revealed by Western countries in 2009. The question now is whether Iran has other intact secret facilities and a sufficient stock of HEU hidden away with which to restart the programme away from prying eyes. Iran had previously threatened to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. If it does so now, IAEA inspectors would have no way to observe Iran's future nuclear work. Nevertheless, Israel's spies have displayed an extraordinary ability to penetrate Iran's nuclear enterprise and security forces, and have repeatedly assassinated nuclear scientists and generals. The Iranian project has been much more extensive and dispersed than the efforts of Iraq and Syria, whose reactors Israel bombed in 1981 and 2007 respectively. 'Will this look more like Syria 2007—where a nuclear programme was decisively ended—or Iraq 1981, where nuclear ambitions were strengthened, and repeated intervention was required?" asks Nicholas Miller, a non-proliferation expert at Dartmouth College. 'Assuming the current regime stays in power in Iran, my money is on the latter."

Business Standard

27 minutes ago

• Business Standard

'Dumb presidents' led US into wars, says JD Vance on new Iran strategy

US Vice President JD Vance defends US strikes on Iran as limited and targeted, criticises past presidents for dragging America into decades-long wars; Trump signals shift with talk of regime change New Delhi US Vice President JD Vance criticised what he called the country's 'dumb former presidents', arguing they dragged America into two decades of costly West Asia conflicts. 'I empathise with Americans who are exhausted after 25 years of foreign entanglements in the Middle East. I understand the concern, but the difference is that back then we had dumb presidents,' Vance said in an interview with NBC News, recalling his own Marine Corps service in Iraq. . @VP Vance on the Trump Admin's dedication to peace through strength in the Middle East: 'The way you achieve peace is through can't sit there and allow the Iranians to achieve a nuclear weapon and expect that's going to lead to peace.' — Taylor Van Kirk (@VPPressSec) June 22, 2025 Early Sunday, US forces struck three Iranian nuclear facilities in the first wave of 'Operation Midnight Hammer', formally inserting Washington into the war between its ally Israel and Iran. The operation came days after President Donald Trump publicly gave himself a two-week window to decide on military action — timing that now appears to have been a diversionary tactic. 'Iran can't have a nuclear weapon' Vance stressed that the US objective is narrowly focused on Tehran's nuclear programme. 'It is not going to be some long, drawn-out thing. We've got in, we've done the job of setting their nuclear programme back. We're going to now work to permanently dismantle that nuclear program over the coming years, and that is what the president has set out to do. Simple principle: Iran can't have a nuclear weapon,' he said. Five prez, two wars, one new approach Over the past 25 years, three Democrats — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden —and two Republicans — George W Bush and Trump — have occupied the Oval Office. Bush launched the post-9/11 'War on Terror', sending US troops to Afghanistan and Iraq. Vance contends that Trump 'actually knows how to accomplish America's national security objectives', signalling a break with what he views as a legacy of misguided interventions. As Washington's latest strikes aggravate across the region, the administration insists its sights remain set solely on preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, not on waging an open-ended war. Trump hints at regime change in Iran Trump appeared to reverse his earlier position on the Israel-Iran conflict, now raising the possibility of a regime change in Tehran — a move he had distanced himself from just days earlier. In a post on X, Trump wrote: 'It's not politically correct to use the term, 'Regime Change', but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn't there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!' The statement came shortly after US airstrikes targeted three major nuclear facilities in Iran as part of a broader escalation. Trump declared the sites were 'completely and fully obliterated'. In response, Iran has vowed to retaliate, with its parliament approving a measure to block Western naval access to the Strait of Hormuz, a vital oil shipping route.

Business Standard

27 minutes ago

• Business Standard

How much damage US strikes did on Iran's nuclear facilities: Satellite pics

The United States carried out coordinated strikes on three of Iran's most significant nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan on June 22. The operation, involving B-2 stealth bombers, submarine-launched cruise missiles and precision-guided munitions, was one of the most complex missions in recent US military history. The Pentagon described the 25-minute window of strikes, executed between 2.10 am and 2.35 am Iran time, as the largest B-2 combat operation ever conducted. President Donald Trump hailed the mission as 'spectacularly successful', claiming the sites were 'totally obliterated.' Iranian officials disputed this, saying key facilities had been evacuated in advance and that nuclear activities would resume without interruption. Fordow: Deep-strike hits on hardened facility The Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, buried deep within a mountain near Qom, was hit by at least 14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrators, a 30,000lb 'bunker busters' designed for hardened underground targets. The strike was part of 'Operation Midnight Hammer' and executed by B-2 bombers flying under radio silence. Satellite imagery reviewed by Al Jazeera's Sanad unit shows multiple impact craters and damage to nearby air defence systems. Fordow had previously housed centrifuges capable of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. Iran maintains the facility was dedicated to peaceful research and had been under International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision until recently. Natanz: Disabling support systems At Natanz, Iran's largest enrichment complex, the US targeted above-ground infrastructure, including power distribution systems and support facilities. The site had already suffered damage in an Israeli airstrike on June 15. Although the fortified underground cascade hall appears intact, disruption to power systems may have impaired centrifuge operations. The IAEA had previously confirmed enrichment at Natanz had reached 60 per cent purity, just short of the 90 per cent threshold for weapons-grade material. Isfahan: Precision cruise missile barrage Over two dozen Tomahawk cruise missiles, launched from a US Navy submarine, struck the Isfahan Nuclear Technology Centre. This was the third strike on the site since Israeli raids began on June 13. While no enrichment occurs at Isfahan, the facility plays a critical role in uranium conversion and nuclear research. Iranian authorities reported no radiation leaks, a claim echoed by the IAEA, which confirmed it had detected no contamination and continued to monitor all three sites. Satellite image shows an overview of Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center, before (left) and after (right) it was hit by US airstrikes, in Isfahan, Iran, June 22, 2025. | Photo: Reuters Satellite image shows a close up of a crater over the underground facility of Natanz Enrichment Facility, after it was hit by US airstrikes, near Natanz, Iran, June 22, 2025. | Photo: Reuters How the strikes unfolded According to US military sources cited by Al Jazeera, the mission began shortly after midnight with seven B-2 bombers supported by over 125 aircraft, including fighters, tankers and surveillance planes. A decoy bomber group flew westward over the Pacific to divert Iranian defences, while the main strike team approached from the east under radio silence. Cruise missile launches on Isfahan began at 5 pm (EST), followed by B-2 strikes on Fordow and Natanz by 6.40 pm. US forces in the region were placed on high alert ahead of the operation amid fears of Iranian retaliation. The B-2 stealth bomber has an intercontinental range that can fly at high subsonic speed and can carry a maximum payload of 40,000 pounds (18,144 kilograms) Strategic context: Delay, not destruction The US strikes expand on Israel's multi-day offensive targeting Iran's nuclear programme. While the damage appears significant, military analysts suggest the operation is likely to delay rather than dismantle Iran's nuclear capabilities. In the attack, Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a key oil transit chokepoint. Although such a move requires approval from the Supreme National Security Council, this is the first time Iran has moved to close the strait during a conflict. Tehran insists its nuclear activities are peaceful, citing energy and medical research as primary goals. However, uranium enrichment resumed following the US withdrawal from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has drawn international concern. As of May, the IAEA estimated Iran held around 400kg of uranium enriched to 60 per cent.