Why in news?

US President Donald Trump has urged NATO allies to support the ongoing US-Israel war against Iran, particularly in securing the Strait of Hormuz, warning of consequences if they refuse.

However, several NATO members, including Germany, have rejected this call, stating the conflict is not a NATO matter. The war, now in its third week, has escalated tensions across West Asia, including the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route for nearly 20% of global oil shipments.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• NATO: Structure and Core Principle of Collective Defence
• Why NATO Is Not Fighting as an Alliance?
• Current NATO Position in the Iran Conflict
• Trump’s Grievances Against NATO

NATO: Structure and Core Principle of Collective Defence

• NATO, established in 1949 after World War II, is an intergovernmental military alliance comprising 32 member countries, mainly from Europe, along with the US and Canada.
• Its defining feature is collective defence under Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, ensuring mutual security against external threats.

Why NATO Is Not Fighting as an Alliance?

• Violation of NATO’s Peace Principles - Article 1 requires members to resolve disputes peacefully and avoid force inconsistent with UN principles. The current conflict does not align with these norms, limiting NATO’s collective involvement.
• Article 5 Applies Only to Defensive Situations - Article 5 mandates action only in case of an armed attack on a member state. Even after 9/11, allies were not obligated to join US military action, choosing voluntary participation instead.
• Flexibility in Support - NATO members can choose non-military support, such as financial or humanitarian aid, instead of direct military involvement.
• Geographical Limitations - Article 6 restricts NATO’s defence obligations to Europe, North America, Turkey, and parts of the North Atlantic. The Iran-related conflict lies outside NATO’s operational zone.
• High Threshold for Collective Action - NATO maintains a strict threshold for invoking collective defence. Attacks on member assets do not automatically trigger Article 5 unless conditions are clearly met.

Current NATO Position in the Iran Conflict

• Limited Role: “Enabling Support” - NATO has confined itself to logistics and missile defence support, avoiding direct military involvement. The alliance has not invoked Article 5, maintaining a cautious stance.
• Official Stand: No Collective Military Action - NATO leadership has clarified there are no plans for formal involvement. Any participation is through individual member actions, not as a unified alliance.
• European Resistance to US Call - Several European nations, including Germany, have rejected calls for escalation. Preference is for diplomatic solutions, with leaders stressing “this is not our war.”
• Individual Allies Acting Independently
  • Some members are supporting operations at their own discretion:
    • UK: Allowing use of bases in Cyprus and deploying forces
    • Greece: Sending frigates and F-16s
    • France: Deploying naval assets
  • NATO forces have also intercepted Iranian drones and missiles in key locations.
  • The alliance’s eastern flank is handling conflict spillovers, especially near Turkey.
  • Despite rising tensions, NATO continues to avoid formal entry into the war.

Trump’s Grievances Against NATO

• Burden-Sharing Concerns - Donald Trump has long argued that NATO allies underfund defence, placing a disproportionate burden on the US. Members are expected to spend at least 2% of GDP on defence.
• Misleading Claims and Reality - Trump claimed many countries were “not paying anything,” which is inaccurate. Rising defence spending among allies has been driven largely by security concerns like the Russia-Ukraine war.
• NATO’s Support to the US - Article 5 has been invoked only once, after the 9/11 attacks, in support of the US. NATO allies actively participated in Afghanistan and Iraq wars, contributing troops and resources.
• Diverging Perspectives on US Wars - Some European leaders view interventions like the 2003 Iraq War as costly and misguided. This has shaped reluctance toward future US-led military engagements.
• Overall Position
  • While Trump highlights funding imbalances, data shows growing contributions by allies, alongside a history of shared military commitments and sacrifices.
  • US defence spending accounted for 63% of NATO’s total in 2024 (down from 72% in 2016).
  • However, the US ranks sixth in defence spending as a percentage of GDP.
  • Non-US allies increased spending significantly from $292 billion (2016) to $482 billion (2024).
  • 18 of 31 members met the 2% target in 2024, up from just 4 in 2016.