By CIC International Affairs
NATO’S ONE FOR ALL, ALL FOR ONE STRATEGY AND WHY IT’S NOT APPLICABLE IN IRAN WAR.
NATO, the top military alliance of the West led by the US, is not helping Washington’s military interests in its ongoing joint operations with Israel against Iran. This is a sharp contrast with how the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation was eager to help Ukraine against Russia, even though Kyiv is not even a member of the military alliance. What explains the dichotomy? Here is what you should know.
So far, NATO appears to have limited its role to defensive measures, rhetorical backing and possible logistical support. Forces of the 32-member alliance are not directly participating in airstrikes on Iran.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte said many European leaders ‘support the goals’ of the operation.
“I feel widespread support in Europe,” Rutte said, while expressing backing for taking out Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
But Rutte spoke mainly about defending Nato territory, not about direct military help. He described Iran as “an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger” and warned the alliance would protect its members if needed.
Noting that Iran is ‘an exporter of chaos that posed far-reaching danger’, he stressed that NATO’s focus remains defensive, and vowed to defend ‘every inch of NATO territory if needed.’
“NATO is well-postured to defend Allied populations against ballistic threats,” he added.
Interestingly, when it comes to ‘NATO territory’, one must remember that Turkey, which borders the Middle East, is also a NATO member.
Some ballistic missiles launched from Iran entered Turkish airspace and were intercepted by NATO defence systems. However, most of the incidents are being viewed as unintended spillover, even as Turkish officials warned Iran against violating their airspace.
Debris from intercepted missiles fell in southern Turkey. It is unclear whether Iran was directly targeting Turkey to provoke a NATO response. Some analysts believe the ballistic missiles were intended for the Incirlik Air Base in southern Turkey or targets near Gaziantep.
Iran officially denied targeting Turkey. NATO condemned the actions, and President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan warned Tehran that violations of Turkish sovereignty would not be tolerated.
“Turkey does not want to be dragged into this war,” Erdoğan said.
Rutte has made it clear that “nobody’s talking about Article 5.” Article 5 is Nato’s collective defence clause, under which an armed attack on one member is considered an attack on all.
One reason it has not been invoked so far in the Iran war is that Article 5 requires a direct armed attack on a NATO member in Europe or North America.
One could stretch that argument to Turkey, but missile interceptions over Turkish airspace did not trigger collective defence discussions. Most Iranian strikes so far have targeted US facilities in the Middle East, not NATO territory.
Some analysts and officials say invoking Article 5 would require a ‘large-scale attack or invasion of a NATO member,’ which has not happened.
The UK, Italy and France have reportedly allowed the use of some bases and equipment. The UK also deployed four additional Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar for regional defence.
However, this support came after initial hesitation. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at first restricted US access to some bases, including facilities linked to Cyprus. He called for diplomacy and questioned the legality of the conflict.
“The conflict could continue for some time… the best way forward for Iran would be a negotiated settlement,” Starmer said earlier.
Later, the UK allowed limited use of its facilities by American forces.
US President Donald Trump criticised the delay. In a post on Truth Social, he wrote: “We don’t need your help if you’re going to hesitate and then claim credit later.”
What also stood out like a sore thumb on the presumed NATO unity was Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s refusal to allow the US access to Spanish bases. Calling the US actions in Iran illegal under international law, he reiterated Spain’s position of “No to war.”
Another NATO member Germany’s Chancellor Friedrich Merz warned about the lack of a clear exit strategy.
“Some traditional US allies are hemming and hawing about the use of force,” he said. He also said he was unhappy with Starmer, saying the British leader “took far too much time to reverse course” on base access.
Trump also attacked Spain’s position. “Spain has been terrible… cut off all dealings with Spain,” he said.
NATO member countries strongly supported Ukraine after Russia’s invasion in 2022, even though Kyiv is not a member of the alliance. The alliance helped arm Ukraine heavily despite its military asymmetry with Russia. NATO countries including the US, mainly under President Joe Biden supplied Ukraine with billions of dollars and euros in weapons, training, intelligence and air-defence systems. The power acquired through military and financial aid helped Ukraine prolong its resistance to the Russian invasion for more than four years.
The argument is that Ukraine had the right to self-defence against what the alliance called Russia’s “brutal and unprovoked war of aggression.”
NATO also sees Russia as the most significant and direct threat to Allied security. The Russian invasion was viewed by many European NATO members as a direct and potentially existential threat, making Ukraine’s defence central to European stability.
The cautious NATO stance in the Iran war, by contrast, stems partly from the fact that the US-Israel campaign is viewed by many allies as an offensive operation launched outside NATO territory.
That distinction limits NATO’s legal mandate under Article 5. There has also been no formal request from the US for NATO military intervention. Trump has occasionally said the US can finish the job in Iran on its own.
Rutte described the situation as an “and-and” approach: enabling US actions in the Middle East while ensuring Ukraine “has what it needs to stay strong in the fight.”
The difference reflects NATO’s doctrine: strong support for defensive wars that directly affect European security, but far greater caution about joining offensive conflicts abroad. NATO nations in Europe are already worn out by the Russia-Ukraine war. They just cannot afford to get drawn into another conflict, happening away from its core area of operation.
CIC PRESS TEAM