NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte praised the U.S.-Israeli military strikes on Iran on Monday while confirming that the alliance will not participate in the operation, underscoring the organization's uncertain role in an era of American unilateralism and shifting strategic priorities.
"The United States and Israel have the right to defend themselves," Rutte said in remarks to reporters at NATO headquarters in Brussels. "But this is not a NATO operation, and the alliance will not be involved." The statement, reported by Reuters, reflects the complex position of an alliance built on collective defense but now facing a conflict where its leading member is acting without coalition support.
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. NATO invoked Article 5—its collective defense provision—only once in its 75-year history: after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States. That invocation led to NATO's involvement in Afghanistan, a 20-year mission that ended in failure and recrimination. The experience left the alliance deeply cautious about out-of-area operations, particularly those not directly connected to the defense of member states' territory.
The current conflict with Iran does not trigger Article 5. Iran has not attacked NATO members' territory (though that could change if the Riyadh embassy fire proves to be an attack). The U.S.-Israeli strikes were not defensive in nature but rather preemptive or retaliatory, depending on one's perspective. Under NATO's founding treaty, there is no obligation—or even a strong rationale—for the alliance to participate.
Yet Rutte's praise for the operation suggests a desire to maintain solidarity with Washington even as NATO declines to join. That balancing act—supporting the U.S. politically while remaining aloof militarily—reflects the alliance's ambiguous position in conflicts that fall outside its core mission.
The reluctance of NATO members to participate is not uniform. Israel, though not a member, has coordinated closely with the United States. But of NATO's 32 member states, none have committed forces to the operation. Britain, historically the most reliable U.S. military partner, explicitly declined to participate. France and Germany have focused their attention on European security, particularly the nuclear deterrence debate prompted by Macron's weekend announcement.
The contrast with 1991 is stark. When the United States led a coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, NATO members contributed substantially. Britain, France, Canada, and others sent troops, aircraft, and ships, creating a broad international coalition that gave the operation political legitimacy and military heft. The 2003 Iraq invasion, by contrast, saw far more limited participation—primarily Britain and smaller contingents from Poland, Australia, and others. The current Iran operation has even less coalition support.
What does NATO neutrality mean for the alliance's future? On one level, it's a prudent decision. Committing NATO to an operation with unclear objectives, no UN mandate, and contested legality would strain the alliance's cohesion. Members like Turkey—which has complex relations with Iran and Israel—would almost certainly oppose NATO involvement, potentially fracturing the organization.
On another level, it highlights NATO's limitations. If the alliance cannot or will not act when its most powerful member is engaged in a major military operation in a strategically critical region, what is its purpose beyond territorial defense of Europe and North America? The question is not new—NATO spent much of the post-Cold War era searching for a mission—but it has renewed urgency.
The decision also reflects European priorities. With Russia still waging war in Ukraine and threatening NATO's eastern flank, European members are focused on deterrence and defense closer to home. Committing resources to a Middle Eastern operation would detract from that core mission. Macron's nuclear umbrella offer, announced the same weekend as the Iran strikes, signals where European strategic attention is focused: on building autonomous defense capabilities for the continent, not on supporting American operations elsewhere.
For Washington, NATO's non-participation is a mixed signal. On one hand, it reinforces the narrative that European allies are unwilling to share the burden of global security challenges. On the other, it reflects a strategic choice by the Trump administration to act unilaterally rather than build a coalition. If the U.S. had sought NATO involvement—if it had made the case at the North Atlantic Council and requested alliance support—the outcome might have been different. But there's little evidence the administration tried.
The parallel with Article 5 is instructive. When the United States invoked collective defense after 9/11, NATO members responded. The alliance deployed to Afghanistan, and thousands of European troops served alongside Americans for two decades. But that was a defensive operation triggered by an attack on U.S. soil. The Iran operation, whatever its justifications, does not fit that model.
Rutte's comments also reveal a tension between NATO's official neutrality and its political sympathies. By praising the strikes, the Secretary General signals that the alliance is not opposed to the operation—it simply won't participate. That distinction may satisfy diplomatic requirements, but it's a thin line. If the conflict escalates and Iran or its proxies attack NATO members, the alliance's current neutrality will become untenable.
The risk of escalation is real. If Iran strikes the Incirlik air base in Turkey, a NATO member, the alliance would face immense pressure to respond under Article 5. If Hezbollah attacks Israeli targets from Lebanon and Israel retaliates in ways that threaten European interests, NATO's neutrality would be tested. The organization is hoping to avoid those scenarios—but hope is not a strategy.
For now, NATO is threading a needle: supporting the United States politically, maintaining alliance cohesion, and avoiding entanglement in a conflict that most members view as outside NATO's mandate. Rutte's statement reflects that careful balance. But as the conflict with Iran unfolds, the space for neutrality may narrow. If it does, NATO will face a choice: adapt its mission to a world where the United States acts unilaterally on global challenges, or accept a diminished role as a regional defense pact focused solely on Europe.
Neither option is appealing. But the alliance's decision not to join the Iran operation suggests it has already made its choice.
