Imagine, for a moment, the alternative. In the hours immediately following a successful decapitation strike, instead of criticism and handwringing, the European Union and NATO leadership step forward in lockstep with Washington and Jerusalem and say: We stand shoulder to shoulder with the United States and Israel; Iran will never possess a nuclear weapon; and the removal of this leadership has made the world safer.

Think about how Tehran would have processed that—not as a tactical setback, but as strategic isolation. Think about how Beijing and Moscow would have read it: a West that is unified, decisive, and willing to act in concert. That kind of clarity doesn’t just end a news cycle—it reshapes behavior.

Instead, what we saw was hesitation. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte acknowledged, in effect, that some allies were slower to respond than the moment demanded. That matters. Because in moments like this, speed and unity are not cosmetic—they’re strategic.

NATO CHIEF SIGNALS ALLIES MAY ACT ON HORMUZ, WARNS OF ‘UNHEALTHY CODEPENDENCE’ ON US

I’ve spent enough time inside the system—both in business and as U.S. ambassador to the European Union—to recognize when frustration is tactical and when it’s structural. Donald Trump’s irritation with NATO falls squarely into the latter category. It’s not a passing complaint. It’s a fundamental disagreement about what the alliance is supposed to do—and whether it still has the will to do it.

NATO proudly defines itself as a defensive organization. Fine. But let’s be clear about what “defense” actually means in 2026. It does not mean waiting politely until the next missile hits or the next proxy attack kills Americans or Israelis. Defense, in the real world, includes deterrence, disruption and, when necessary, decisive action against actors who have spent decades making their intentions clear.

Iran has been running that playbook for 47 years: dead American soldiers, attacks on shipping, and a relentless campaign against Israel, one of the West’s most important allies. This isn’t theoretical. It’s not episodic. It’s sustained hostility.

So when the United States moves to degrade that threat, even in a limited and targeted way, the expectation from Washington—particularly from Trump—isn’t that NATO jumps into the fight. It’s far simpler than that. Let us use bases. Give us airspace. Provide political cover. Stand with us publicly.

MORNING GLORY: PRESIDENT TRUMP LEADS THE WEST TO A BIG WIN AGAINST IRAN

And yet, time and again, the response from parts of Europe is hesitation, legal hand-wringing and carefully calibrated distance.

That’s what’s driving Trump’s frustration.

Let’s address the issue of advance notice, because it’s become a talking point. Critics argue that not fully briefing allies ahead of sensitive operations is disrespectful or destabilizing. That’s a Washington talking point that doesn’t survive contact with reality.

In an alliance this large, with this many domestic constituencies and internal divisions, leaks are not hypothetical—they’re a certainty. Anti-war factions, staff-level dissent, political maneuvering—it all creates risk. And when you’re talking about high-value targets or leadership decapitation, surprise isn’t a luxury. It’s the mission.

TRUMP IS RIGHT ABOUT NATO’S WEAKNESS — THE REAL QUESTION IS HOW DOES AMERICA FIX IT

The psychological impact of those operations matters as much as the physical outcome. You want the adversary disoriented, off-balance and unsure of what comes next. That only works if you preserve operational integrity. So no—this isn’t about sidelining allies. It’s about making sure the mission succeeds.

And let’s not pretend NATO is operating in a vacuum. Allied governments know when tensions are escalating. They see force posture changes. They understand, at a strategic level, what’s coming. The idea that they’re blindsided is more political theater than operational truth.

What happens after is what really matters—and that’s where the alliance keeps falling short.

Instead of a unified response—something as simple and powerful as “when and where do you need us?”—we get fragmentation. Statements about escalation. Concerns about legality. Efforts to create daylight between Washington and European capitals.

From a geopolitical standpoint, that’s a mistake.

GEN KELLOGG SAYS NATO ALLIES ARE ‘COWARDS,’ CALLS FOR NEW DEFENSE ALLIANCE

Adversaries like Iran are not just watching what the United States does. They’re watching how aligned the West is when it does so. A united front—even if only the United States and Israel are conducting strikes—has enormous psychological impact. It signals that the alliance is cohesive, that political backing is firm and that there’s no easy way to divide and exploit.

When that unity cracks, even rhetorically, it invites testing. It tells Tehran there’s room to maneuver, to push incrementally, to escalate in ways that stay below the threshold of a unified response. Over time, that raises the cost of deterrence and increases the risk of a much larger conflict down the road.

Trump understands this instinctively. He’s not looking for consensus for its own sake. He’s looking for leverage.

NATO CHIEF SAYS WORLD IS ‘ABSOLUTELY’ SAFER UNDER TRUMP

And leverage, particularly with regimes like Iran, doesn’t come from endless negotiation. It comes from pressure—economic, military, psychological. Negotiations become productive when the other side believes the alternative is worse. Until then, they’re just buying time.

That’s not a theoretical critique. It’s an observed pattern.

European leaders often take a different view, rooted in decades of prioritizing diplomacy and avoiding escalation. I understand that instinct. But there’s a difference between diplomacy backed by strength and diplomacy that substitutes for it.

STEVE FORBES: IRAN’S NUCLEAR INSANITY LEAVES AMERICA AND ALLIES NO ROOM TO BLINK

If the latter becomes the default, you don’t get stability. You get erosion.

And eventually, you get adversaries who believe they can act with relative impunity—until the only options left are far more extreme.

This is where burden-sharing comes back into focus. The United States still carries a disproportionate share of NATO’s financial and military load. That’s not controversial—it’s arithmetic. Even NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte has acknowledged that Europe has been slow to step up on defense spending and responsiveness.

TRUMP SAYS HE’S CONSIDERING PULLING US OUT OF NATO OVER IRAN WAR STANCE

So when Washington asks for access, cooperation or even just unambiguous political support, it’s not an unreasonable request. It’s the basic expectation of an alliance where one member is doing the heavy lifting.

What Trump is effectively saying is this: if we’re underwriting the system, the system needs to work when it matters.

Now, to be fair, European governments are not operating in a vacuum. Domestic politics matter. Public opinion matters. There is deep skepticism about military engagement, particularly in the Middle East. Leaders have to navigate that reality.

TRUMP RATES MACRON ‘AN 8’ AS FRANCE AND US SPLIT OVER MIDDLE EAST STRATEGY

But leadership is not about mirroring public hesitation. It’s about shaping public understanding—especially when the stakes are rising.

There are moments when you have to bring your population along, not hide behind it. Moments when the right answer is not to deflect, but to lead.

This is one of those moments.

TRUMP, RUBIO FACE NATO CHIEF AS US MOVES TO ‘REEXAMINE’ ALLIANCE AFTER IRAN CLASH

Because the alternative is a slow erosion of deterrence. A pattern where the United States acts, Europe distances itself and adversaries adapt. That’s not a stable equilibrium—it’s a glide path to a larger crisis.

And here’s the uncomfortable truth: if that crisis comes after years of incremental escalation, the options available at that point will be far worse than the ones being debated today.

That’s the strategic risk embedded in Europe’s current posture.

DAVID MARCUS: IN TRUMP’S DEPARTMENT OF WAR, IT’S SOLDIERS — NOT EXPERTS — CALLING THE SHOTS

Trump’s approach—pressure first, negotiation second—isn’t universally popular. But it’s grounded in a clear understanding of how regimes like Iran operate. They don’t respond to goodwill gestures. They respond to credible threats.

Or, to put it more bluntly: negotiations tend to work when the other side feels like it is on the ground, bleeding, with a gun to its national forehead.

That’s not elegant language. But it reflects a real-world dynamic.

ECONOMIST EDITOR SAYS EUROPEAN LEADERS NOW FEAR A TRUE NATO ‘DIVORCE’ AFTER TRUMP PULLOUT THREAT

So the question for NATO isn’t whether it agrees with every American decision or every presidential instinct. That’s not how alliances work. The question is whether it’s prepared to act like a strategic partner when it counts.

Because in the end, alliances are judged by behavior, not by communiqués.

Right now, there’s a gap between what NATO says it is and how parts of it are behaving under pressure. Trump is calling that out—forcefully, sometimes inelegantly, but not inaccurately.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS OPINION

Closing that gap doesn’t require Europe to become something it’s not. It requires clarity, consistency and a willingness to stand shoulder to shoulder—even if the operational burden falls primarily on the United States.

Sometimes leadership means explaining to your public why action is necessary.

Sometimes it means acting first and bringing them along after.

And sometimes, it simply means answering the call with the words that, right now, we’re not hearing nearly enough:

“When and where do you need us?”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM GORDON SONDLAND

The exploding popularity of GLP-1 receptor agonists like Ozempic and Wegovy is often hailed as a public health triumph, but one potential side effect may be flying under the radar.

The risk of divorce increases as weight drops, according to historical data from bariatric surgery patients.

Some experts believe that the same pattern could occur as more people “take the jab” and decide to call it quits on their marriages.

STUDY REVEALS HOW RAPIDLY WEIGHT COMES BACK AFTER QUITTING OBESITY MEDICATIONS

Per-Arne Svensson, a professor at the Institute of Health and Care Sciences in Sweden, studies the link between weight loss and relationship status. While these drugs have many metabolic benefits, he warns that the social fallout is very real.

“The effect likely unfolds in several stages,” Svensson told Fox News Digital. “First, a substantial amount of weight must be lost, which typically occurs within the first year. Subsequently, changes in relationship dynamics may begin to emerge, followed by the legal processes associated with divorce.”

This observation aligns with previous studies that found patients who underwent bariatric surgery were twice as likely to get a divorce compared to the general population.

STOPPING GLP-1 DRUGS LIKE OZEMPIC ERODES HEART HEALTH BENEFITS QUICKLY, NEW STUDY FINDS

In addition to helping with diabetes control and weight management, GLP-1s have also been found to help break unhealthy, reward-seeking habits like drinking and smoking.

However, Svensson said the cause of these splits isn’t necessarily a change in a patient’s temperament or brain chemistry. Instead, he points to the psychological and social shifts that accompany a new physique.

“Weight loss itself may increase a sense of autonomy or confidence, potentially empowering individuals to leave unhealthy relationships,” he told Fox News Digital.

Many patients report that their lifestyles change substantially after weight loss, “often involving greater social engagement and increased attention from others,” the doctor added.

GREATER WEIGHT LOSS PROMISED BY HIGHER-DOSE WEGOVY SHOT, NOW APPROVED BY FDA

If a partner is unable to adapt to this more outgoing version of their spouse, the friction can cause rifts.

A 2013 study supports this “relationship tension” theory, finding that when one partner loses significant weight while the other remains the same, it can lead to feelings of insecurity and criticism from the partner who didn’t change.

“Currently, surgery leads to greater average weight loss, and its impact on relationships is therefore likely to be more pronounced,” Svensson said.

“However, as newer, more effective medications are developed, we may soon see comparable levels of weight loss to those achieved with surgery.”

Svensson noted that weight loss doesn’t have to mean “date loss.”

“Among individuals who are single, the likelihood of forming a new relationship also increases substantially after weight loss,” he said.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR HEALTH NEWSLETTER

“While it may be somewhat discouraging to acknowledge the role of appearance in partner selection, finding a new romantic partner is nevertheless one of the most significant events in a person’s life.”

To mitigate the risk of a split, Svensson suggests that couples take a collaborative approach to health.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE HEALTH STORIES

If one partner is pursuing wellness goals, involving the spouse in healthy lifestyle changes — such as diet and exercise — can create a shared journey rather than one that pulls the couple apart, according to the expert.

TEST YOURSELF WITH OUR LATEST LIFESTYLE QUIZ

“There may be clear advantages to partners undertaking weight-loss treatment together,” provided that both have a clinical need, Svensson added.

Fox News Digital reached out to GLP-1 manufacturers requesting comment.

Investigative journalist Chris Hansen warns parents about Roblox, comparing it to an amusement park where “kids are flying off” the rides.

The “To Catch a Predator” host sat down for the “Planet Tyrus” podcast to explain his findings and what he claims is a surge of grooming on the site. Hansen noted that the platform’s visual style, which features cartoon, customizable avatars, often masks the underlying dangers.

“It was shocking to me that you have this kids’ game with characters that appear to be so innocent, like Lego characters, but I guess it just goes to show that predators will go wherever the children are,” Hansen said.

Roblox is a gaming giant used by millions of children and teenagers. The company is facing a wave of legal challenges, including a lawsuit involving more than 140 people who argue the game’s design, such as open chat and private spaces, aided predators.

TIM TEBOW URGES SUPREME COURT TO MAKE BIG TECH ‘PROTECT KIDS OVER PROFIT’ IN CSAM CASE

Several state attorneys general have also launched lawsuits against the company, accusing it of prioritizing profits over user safety.

Hansen investigated the platform for his streaming network, digging into allegations of child exploitation. He said today’s digital landscape is far more dangerous for children than early internet chatrooms.

HOUSE MOVES TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM ONLINE PREDATORS AS AUSTRALIA CLAMPS DOWN ON SOCIAL MEDIA

“People ask, ‘Is the problem worse today than it was 22 years ago?’ The answer is yes, it’s way worse because there are so many different platforms upon which adults can approach children,” Hansen said.

A spokesperson for Roblox told Fox News Digital that “safety is at the core of everything we do,” and noted they have a “multi-layered defense system” blending technology and strict policy enforcement to keep young people safe.

“We have always completely blocked the sharing of images or videos in chat and use rigorous filters designed to prevent the exchange of personal information,” the company added. 

BIG TECH’S TOBACCO MOMENT IS HERE — AND THE TRUTH ABOUT HARMING KIDS IS OUT

However, Hansen called for greater accountability from the game developers meant to protect “vulnerable children.”

“If kids are flying off a ride at an amusement park left and right, they have a responsibility to make that ride safer, so kids aren’t flying off the ride. Roblox has a similar responsibility,” he said.

Roblox has countered safety concerns, saying it has instituted safeguards such as content moderation, parental controls and age verification. It said that since January, it has required users to complete age checks to chat on the platform, limiting interaction to users of a similar age or people they already know. 

“We take swift action against anyone found to violate our community standards and collaborate closely with law enforcement to hold bad actors accountable. While no system can be perfect, we will never stop innovating around safety and working with trusted partners to make Roblox better and safer.”