Now I'm basically in favor of disbanding NATO (and the UN - but that's a different argument). NATO may have served a purpose after WWII and perhaps up to the end of the "Cold War" - which ended in 1989 or so.

Today? What's the purpose?

Let's ignore the pros and cons of the present ammunition drain and think of the fundamental claim of NATO: "All for one and one for all"

So the US gets into a kerfluffle - partially to finally break up the Iranian government (our declared and actual enemy since '79 - at least) and significantly to keep oil flowing. Argue pros and cons of the oil trade but our world runs on the stuff with no realistic alternatives in sight at the moment - oil has too many advantages over any other practical fuel source in today's environment.

But the US has very little dependence on Middle East oil - it's Europe and others that depend on the good will of that part of the world ... so one can make an argument that at least part of this war is US fighting on Europe's behalf.

In today's news:
"more and more EU and NATO countries are moving to block US military flights operating in Iran. This includes Spain, Switzerland, Italy and now France."

OK. Their choice. Though it kind of defeats the premise of NATO, doesn't it?
But if they were being attacked, I'm pretty sure they'd wail and moan and beg Uncle Sam to come save their asses.

We need to get rid of these useless treaties ... NATO being high on the list.

The yur'a'peeins always bragging about their own righteousness; they can be righteous without our tax dollars.