Technically, that would even apply to an attack on the US…and that seems increasingly likely, given the circumstances. We may not have to attack everyone that the US attacks…but we are obligated to defend them.
It does not. The US attacked. This war is a US action, and any counter attacks would not be covered.
“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”
Even if the US did invoke article 5, NATO members don’t have to participate, because the US started it. You cannot be the aggressor and then claim self-defence.
That doesn’t say what you say it does, though. There’s no exception regarding “who started it” included in that passage. It simply states that any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all of them, etc.
The only condition implied is that the attack must occur in Europe or North America…so, if Iran decides to attack a NATO member directly, Article 5 could be invoked.
Which part actually says that? You quoted two paragraphs, and nowhere in there does it condition Article 5 based on how the conflict started. It’s only based on whether or not a NATO member is attacked. If a member nation requires defending, then Article 5 takes effect
You’re also ignoring the fact that Canada would have to get involved if Iran attacked any NATO member…not just the US. There were already concerns yesterday over a missile that ended up in Turkey, but so far they haven’t invoked Article 5. If Iran continues to fire missiles at them, that may change…and the rest of NATO will be obligated to come to their defense.
The US may have started this, but that doesn’t negate the terms of the treaty. If anything it puts those terms on the table, ready to activate at a moment’s notice. So far, thankfully, no one else seems that eager to get involved. But that will change if Iran actually targets a member state directly.
It entirely does. NATO is a defence pact, not a mandatory requirement to go to war just because. It was specifically designed to be defensive, so no NATO country could be the aggressor and have the others forced to support them. Exactly as is happening now.
It’s only based on whether or not a NATO member is attacked.
Yes. And if Iran defends itself, that is not an attack, it’s a defence.
The NATO charter also specifically calls out article 51 of the UN charter which states that while a country can defend itself, it cannot “affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
Not only can the US not claim that article 5 would apply, that have violated the UN charter.
Again, the US cannot be the victim of an attack it started. Any military assets of the US that Iran attacks, are not covered by article 5. Any non-military assets are war crimes and the UN charter and the Geneva conventions, which Iran is a signatory of and would be dealt with by the UN, and not NATO.
Ok. So, you have the same definition of “self-defense” that Israel has been using to justify bombing Gaza into dust for the last two and a half years now. It’s not a valid definition of “self-defense”. You can’t just use an attack to justify perpetual retaliation. That quickly slides away from being a “defensive action”, and eventually winds up being considered a “hostile action”.
Iran absolutely has the right to defend itself against US attacks…but that definition of “defense” does not extend to attacking the US civilian population or even targeting US domestic infrastructure. They can retaliate against US military targets abroad until the cows come home, and legitimately call it “defense”…but if they park a submarine off the coast of Florida and launch missile strikes against US cities…they have now crossed the line into “attacking” the US. Even targeting civilians at all, should reasonably nullify any claims of “self-defense”.
And that would absolutely trigger Article 5. NATO would be required to come to their defense.
you have the same definition of “self-defense” that Israel has been using to justify bombing Gaza
You completely made that up in your mind. I said the UN would be responsible if Iran committed war crimes, not NATO.
NATO would be required to come to their defense.
And this right there proves you don’t understand what Article 5 actually says.
You seem to have an understanding of the NATO charter gleaned entirely from headlines. Article 5 states, “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”
AGAIN… the US is the aggressor. The US has already committed war crimes against Iran. The US has broken the rules defined in the UN charter and the NATO charter specifically calls out, “collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations”. The US, being the aggressor and in contravention of the UN charter, does not get coverage from article 5 of the NATO charter.
The only way in this case the collective defence clause can be trigger is if a non-US NATO country is attacked by Iran.
You completely made that up in your mind. I said the UN would be responsible if Iran committed war crimes, not NATO.
You obviously don’t understand what I’m saying here. The way you are defining “self-defense” is wrong. Just because the US attacked Iran first, does not give Iran a blank check to attack the US directly. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is exactly how Israel has justified its genocide in Gaza. They think that just because Hamas attacked them on Oct 7th, they have every right to pound Gaza I to dust, all in the name of “self-defense”. Except what they are doing stopped being self-defense once they started attacking hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, water and electrical infrastructure.
Just “being attacked” does not mean that everything you do afterwards is “self-defense”. It also doesn’t mean that the country that attacked them “deserves” to be destroyed. The civilians who live there are not guilty of the crimes committed by their government…even if they voted for that government.
Attacking them is not “self-defense”, no matter who struck first.
And this right there proves you don’t understand what Article 5 actually says.
You seem to have an understanding of the NATO charter gleaned entirely from headlines. Article 5 states, “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”
It’s weird that you say that I don’t understand what that says, then you move onto this…
AGAIN… the US is the aggressor. The US has already committed war crimes against Iran. The US has broken the rules defined in the UN charter and the NATO charter specifically calls out, “collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations”. The US, being the aggressor and in contravention of the UN charter, does not get coverage from article 5 of the NATO charter.
If you read the quote you provided…“an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”…it says nothing there about whether or not it’s unprovoked, or anything at all about who did what to whom. Not one word of that carries the context you are inserting into it. If it did carry those conditions…it would say so, right there in the text.
An “armed attack” is literally just that…an armed attack. Whether or not that attack was unprovoked, makes no difference. If a NATO member is under attack, everyone else in the alliance is obligated to defend them.
However, this has always been understood to mean a direct attack against a member nation. If the US is fighting a war of its own making somewhere else, then article 5 is not triggered. But if the United States itself is attacked for whatever reason, it would be. Just like if Iran fired missiles directly at Germany or Canada or Denmark. “An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” That means exactly what it says.
Technically, that would even apply to an attack on the US…and that seems increasingly likely, given the circumstances. We may not have to attack everyone that the US attacks…but we are obligated to defend them.
It does not. The US attacked. This war is a US action, and any counter attacks would not be covered.
Even if the US did invoke article 5, NATO members don’t have to participate, because the US started it. You cannot be the aggressor and then claim self-defence.
That doesn’t say what you say it does, though. There’s no exception regarding “who started it” included in that passage. It simply states that any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all of them, etc.
The only condition implied is that the attack must occur in Europe or North America…so, if Iran decides to attack a NATO member directly, Article 5 could be invoked.
It says exactly what I say it does. The US is the attacker. Unless Iran attacks a country which is not the US, Article 5 doesn’t apply.
It explicitly says in self-defence as per the UN charter. The US is not responding in self defence, they are the belligerent nation.
Which part actually says that? You quoted two paragraphs, and nowhere in there does it condition Article 5 based on how the conflict started. It’s only based on whether or not a NATO member is attacked. If a member nation requires defending, then Article 5 takes effect
You’re also ignoring the fact that Canada would have to get involved if Iran attacked any NATO member…not just the US. There were already concerns yesterday over a missile that ended up in Turkey, but so far they haven’t invoked Article 5. If Iran continues to fire missiles at them, that may change…and the rest of NATO will be obligated to come to their defense.
The US may have started this, but that doesn’t negate the terms of the treaty. If anything it puts those terms on the table, ready to activate at a moment’s notice. So far, thankfully, no one else seems that eager to get involved. But that will change if Iran actually targets a member state directly.
It entirely does. NATO is a defence pact, not a mandatory requirement to go to war just because. It was specifically designed to be defensive, so no NATO country could be the aggressor and have the others forced to support them. Exactly as is happening now.
Yes. And if Iran defends itself, that is not an attack, it’s a defence.
The NATO charter also specifically calls out article 51 of the UN charter which states that while a country can defend itself, it cannot “affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security”.
Not only can the US not claim that article 5 would apply, that have violated the UN charter.
Again, the US cannot be the victim of an attack it started. Any military assets of the US that Iran attacks, are not covered by article 5. Any non-military assets are war crimes and the UN charter and the Geneva conventions, which Iran is a signatory of and would be dealt with by the UN, and not NATO.
Ok. So, you have the same definition of “self-defense” that Israel has been using to justify bombing Gaza into dust for the last two and a half years now. It’s not a valid definition of “self-defense”. You can’t just use an attack to justify perpetual retaliation. That quickly slides away from being a “defensive action”, and eventually winds up being considered a “hostile action”.
Iran absolutely has the right to defend itself against US attacks…but that definition of “defense” does not extend to attacking the US civilian population or even targeting US domestic infrastructure. They can retaliate against US military targets abroad until the cows come home, and legitimately call it “defense”…but if they park a submarine off the coast of Florida and launch missile strikes against US cities…they have now crossed the line into “attacking” the US. Even targeting civilians at all, should reasonably nullify any claims of “self-defense”.
And that would absolutely trigger Article 5. NATO would be required to come to their defense.
You completely made that up in your mind. I said the UN would be responsible if Iran committed war crimes, not NATO.
And this right there proves you don’t understand what Article 5 actually says.
You seem to have an understanding of the NATO charter gleaned entirely from headlines. Article 5 states, “an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”
AGAIN… the US is the aggressor. The US has already committed war crimes against Iran. The US has broken the rules defined in the UN charter and the NATO charter specifically calls out, “collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations”. The US, being the aggressor and in contravention of the UN charter, does not get coverage from article 5 of the NATO charter.
The only way in this case the collective defence clause can be trigger is if a non-US NATO country is attacked by Iran.
You obviously don’t understand what I’m saying here. The way you are defining “self-defense” is wrong. Just because the US attacked Iran first, does not give Iran a blank check to attack the US directly. Two wrongs don’t make a right. This is exactly how Israel has justified its genocide in Gaza. They think that just because Hamas attacked them on Oct 7th, they have every right to pound Gaza I to dust, all in the name of “self-defense”. Except what they are doing stopped being self-defense once they started attacking hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, water and electrical infrastructure.
Just “being attacked” does not mean that everything you do afterwards is “self-defense”. It also doesn’t mean that the country that attacked them “deserves” to be destroyed. The civilians who live there are not guilty of the crimes committed by their government…even if they voted for that government.
Attacking them is not “self-defense”, no matter who struck first.
It’s weird that you say that I don’t understand what that says, then you move onto this…
If you read the quote you provided…“an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all”…it says nothing there about whether or not it’s unprovoked, or anything at all about who did what to whom. Not one word of that carries the context you are inserting into it. If it did carry those conditions…it would say so, right there in the text.
An “armed attack” is literally just that…an armed attack. Whether or not that attack was unprovoked, makes no difference. If a NATO member is under attack, everyone else in the alliance is obligated to defend them.
However, this has always been understood to mean a direct attack against a member nation. If the US is fighting a war of its own making somewhere else, then article 5 is not triggered. But if the United States itself is attacked for whatever reason, it would be. Just like if Iran fired missiles directly at Germany or Canada or Denmark. “An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.” That means exactly what it says.