NATO allies will try to ensure this week’s summit isn’t derailed by the fallout from U.S. military strikes on Iran, experts say, but the conflict may still be “the elephant in the room.”
U.S. President Donald Trump late Monday announced that a ceasefire between Israel and Iran would be phased in over a 24-hour period. However, the prospect of lasting peace between Iran, the U.S. and the wider Middle East remained uncertain Tuesday, with Iran and Israel continuing to trade strikes and Trump openly voicing his frustration.
Despite declining to stake a position publicly on the conflict, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte privately praised Trump for his “decisive action” in a text message that Trump made public Tuesday.
The two-day gathering at The Hague is set to focus on boosting allies’ defence spending and reaffirming support for Ukraine, but is starting a day after Iran launched retaliatory missile strikes on a U.S. air base in Qatar.
Those attacks and any future strikes on American assets in the region are unlikely to trigger NATO’s Article 5 commitment to collective self-defence, however, experts say. That’s because any NATO response to the conflict could further risk fraying the alliance.
“NATO doesn’t really have a mandate to get involved in the Middle Eastern conflict, and they are struggling to just keep NATO hanging together,” said Andrea Charron, a political science professor and director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.
“I don’t think the Trump administration wants to negotiate for consensus in the protection of the U.S.”
All NATO allies must agree on answering an Article 5 invocation with self-defence military actions to support a member under attack. Article 5 is the principle of collective defence: an attack against one member of the military alliance constitutes an attack against all and will spur a joint response.
To date, Article 5 has only been invoked once, after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the U.S., which led to limited NATO operations supporting American forces in the Middle East. Those operations were ultimately overshadowed by the coalition mission against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The current situation in the Middle East is far different, however.
What is different this time?
The Trump administration has been adamant that it is not pursuing war with Iran, and that its strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities over the weekend were in support of Israel’s mission — another reason why experts say NATO won’t want to get involved.
Get breaking National news
For news impacting Canada and around the world, sign up for breaking news alerts delivered directly to you when they happen.
“This is not a NATO out-of-area operation whatsoever,” said Andrew Rasiulis, a former Canadian defence department official and a fellow at the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.
“The United States has not been attacked. This is Israel’s problem.”
Qatar’s government said Monday it successfully intercepted most of the short- and medium-range ballistic missiles launched by Iran at Al Udeid Air Base, which houses both American and Qatari troops. U.S. and Qatari officials said there were no casualties.
Iran said the attack matched the number of U.S. bombs dropped on its nuclear facilities and that the targeted base was outside of populated areas, suggesting Iran wanted to de-escalate.
Although a full-scale attack on a U.S. military base or embassy in a non-NATO country could be considered a “highly provocative” attack on U.S. soil, Charron said, others doubted that would be enough to trigger an Article 5 invocation.
“The bases are basically like rented property,” said Christian Leuprecht, a senior fellow on defence and security at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. In the case of the attack on the Qatari base, he said it would be up to Qatar to retaliate against a violation of its sovereignty.
He also compared the current Iranian response to that in 2020 after the U.S. killed Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani, which also did not escalate the conflict.
However, he noted Turkiye — which has long had tensions with Iran — also has a military base in Qatar, and “it’s not entirely a left-field question” whether it could invoke Article 5 itself if that base is attacked.
A prepared text summit statement agreed by NATO governments and seen by Reuters says: “We reaffirm our ironclad commitment to collective defense as enshrined in Article 5 of the Washington Treaty — that an attack on one is an attack on all.”
How could Iran affect the summit?
Experts agreed that the larger question is whether the summit can be held together as the Middle East conflict evolves.
Speaking to reporters Monday, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte sidestepped questions about Iran, saying the conflict was outside NATO’s territory and was not among the main topics for the summit.
He did say, however, that the U.S. strikes were not a violation of international law — contrasting with statements made by the leaders of NATO members France and Norway — and that Iran must never develop nuclear weapons.
“Allies have repeatedly urged Iran to meet its obligations under the non-proliferation treaty,” he said.
“This summit is about the Euro-Atlantic area, making sure that we can defend ourselves against the Russians — the really fast-reconstituting Russians.”
The brief summit statement will include just one reference to Russia as a threat to Euro-Atlantic security and another to allies’ commitment to supporting Ukraine, Reuters reported.
NATO has called out Iran for supporting Russia’s war in Ukraine, including the supplying of drones to the Russian military.
Iran’s foreign minister met Monday with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had offered to mediate talks between Iran and Israel for a ceasefire.
The main achievement of the NATO summit is expected to be a formal agreement among all allies to commit to a new defence spending target.
Under the new plan, countries would spend 3.5 per cent of GDP on “core defense” — such as weapons, troops — and a further 1.5 per cent on security-related investments such as adapting roads, ports and bridges for use by military vehicles, protecting pipelines and deterring cyberattacks.
That increase, to be phased in over 10 years, would mean hundreds of billions of dollars more spending on defence.
Prime Minister Mark Carney has said Canada will meet the alliance’s previous, decade-old target of two per cent of GDP by the end of this fiscal year, with over $9 billion in new investments.
That newly fast-tracked commitment was announced amid ongoing security and trade negotiations with the U.S.
Trump has called on NATO allies to boost defence spending to five per cent and criticized members who haven’t met the older target. He called Canada a “low payer” and “just about the lowest” in comments to reporters on Friday.
This week’s summit is being seen as a victory for Trump, and experts say he wants to be on hand in Brussels to commemorate the higher spending commitment.
Leuprecht said the U.S. strikes on Iran have sent just as strong a message to NATO as they did to Russia, China and the Middle East.
“Israel had to do the dirty work (in Iran) … so the Americans could fly in, drop the bomb and leave,” he said. “That’s the message to the Europeans: you’re going to have to step up (and) do the dirty work in terms of deterrence. Same with Canada.
“It’s also a message to Putin and Xi Jinping, though, that when American interests are at stake and America draws red lines, count on the Americans to engage.”
— with files from Reuters and The Associated Press
