NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy

It seems just yesterday I was writing up a piece regarding the G7 summit taking place in southern France. In truth, it was a few weeks ago, but now that the NATO summit has wrapped up, I can’t be the only one with deja vu; world leaders meeting amid the continuing US-led war with Iran. I think I’ve seen this film before.

Welcome to Faultline. Last week, heads of NATO member states convened in Turkey for their yearly summit. Many issues were on the table for the summit, and the one expected to take center stage was the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine, considering that the Iran war was supposed to be done, as had been announced weeks ago. However, less than 30 days into the alleged 60-day ceasefire, President Trump has announced that negotiations with Iran are over, and not because they reached an agreement.

So the dominant question remains, if the war in Iran isn’t over, is the rest of NATO expected to intervene? The short answer coming out of Ankara appears to be no — and, notably, almost no one at the summit was willing to press the question.

Some background first. NATO stands apart from the United Nations, the European Union, and the Group of 7 in that it is not only a codified alliance, but it has the clear capacity to militarily intervene. Unlike the UN, which typically relies on making resolutions that encourage (read: rely) on other countries to intervene to complete its goals, NATO can act as a unilateral entity on its own.

Article 5 of the NATO charter states “that an armed attack against one NATO member shall be considered an attack against all members, and triggers an obligation for each member to come to its assistance.” In practice, this means that there is an automatic military obligation for every country involved in NATO.

The only example of its explicit use is the fallout of 9/11, an obvious terrorist attack against the United States that triggered military intervention from NATO in Afghanistan. However, the coalition can also offer help to non-member states informally, and has stepped in on external conflicts, such as bthe 1995 bombing campaign against Bosnian Serb forces amid genocide allegations during the Bosnian War as well as offering military aid to Ukraine amid the Russian invasion as of 2022.

In recent years, however, NATO has been a major point of contention in US politics. Most notably, President Trump has expressed his frustration with the relative contributions of other Western nations in the alliance. The United States leads in individual spending on the military and on NATO by several miles, and is responsible for most contributions during interventions.

As the conflict with Iran continues, Trump has insisted that NATO must play a role in reopening the Strait of Hormuz, and has complained extensively about the lack of help so far. At the summit, US Ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker pushed a “NATO 3.0” framing, calling for allies to boost defense spending and reduce their dependency on the United States militarily — a message that landed squarely on the burden-sharing complaints Trump has voiced since April.

Another point of tension that world leaders have tiptoed around is President Trump’s unique relationship with Russian President Putin, who is currently carrying out the very invasion against Ukraine that NATO has mobilized against. Before Trump left the US for Turkey, he reportedly had a 90-minute phone call with Putin. Last year, he rolled out the red carpet for Putin’s arrival at an Alaska meeting. One of his campaign promises in 2024 was a decisive end to the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours,” which has now exceeded World War I’s length.

That said, Trump said the US would give Ukraine a license to manufacture Patriot air defense systems, which would help defend against Russian missile attacks. His tone was much more amicable with Ukrainian President Zelensky, who he infamously ripped into for not wearing a suit in the White House.

European leaders also each pledged a total of about 70 million euros to the Ukrainian war effort, reflecting increasing faith in Ukraine’s chance in warding off the Russian invasion. The Russian front has shown no signs of slowing, with Russian strikes killing dozens of civilians in Kyiv in the days before the summit even began.

For Americans, it might be a cause for comfort that less taxpayer money will be going abroad, if that is a concern. The Ukraine pledge notably came from European allies and Canada, not the United States. It complies with the Trump administration promises of less international intervention, as well as a lower tax deal, if seen in a vacuum.

But the elephant in the room of these discussions was the apparent lack of an Iran deal. Gas prices are going down, but as things stand, it isn’t likely that they will stay low. The military has reinstated the blockade on the Strait of Hormuz and President Trump has said he plans to keep sanctions and strikes on the table until Iran complies.

The total estimated cost of the Iran war exceeds $100 billion, and broader economic impacts conservatively sit at $150 billion. Though tax bills themselves, this past April and surely next year, are not changing significantly (rather, several Trump-sponsored tax cuts are taking effect) the war’s impact on spending cannot be understated. Practically every measure of spending has increased through the war, imports are more expensive and gas prices will prove to be volatile. Economists estimate that Pentagon spending costs the average American household roughly $1,000 in lost economic benefit, effectively offsetting the administration’s recent tax relief efforts.

But, at last week’s NATO summit, international leaders largely did not voice concerns to the president. Rather, the NATO chief Mark Rutte has described President Trump’s attacks on Iran ‘absolutely necessary,’ even now that Iran’s nuclear capabilities have allegedly been destroyed. Although Article 5 has not been invoked, and countries are not providing outright military support, many member nations are certainly assisting the American war effort through logistical support, airspace, and military bases for U.S. operations.

The one country which has refused to volunteer their airspace, Spain, has been threatened with sanctions and heightened tariffs by President Trump. Not every leader stayed silent — Poland’s Karol Nawrocki and Norway’s Jonas Gahr Støre both pushed back publicly on Trump’s threats to pull US troops from Europe, calling the bluff rather than falling in line. But on Iran specifically, that kind of pushback was notably absent.

What we’re seeing is a reflection of the G7 summit last month, as well as international politics as a whole. No one with the capacity to disagree with Trump in any meaningful way is doing so on the Iran question, and most people have chosen to not disagree at all. In some cases, it seems this strategy has paid off in order to encourage Trump’s continued investment abroad, but will likely circle back to harm Americans.

NATO Has an Article 5. It Doesn't Have an Iran Policy was first published by Faultline and was republished with permission.

Isabel Papp is a summer fellow with The Fulcrum. She is a student at Northwestern University, double‑majoring in Journalism and Political Science. A bilingual journalist, she is a proactive, equity‑centered storyteller committed to elevating underrepresented voices.