Does or did NATO, as NATO, have a role to play in terms of unclogging the Strait of Hormuz?
Pursuant to its own notion of what its mission is in the world?
Only asking because Trump might have been demanding more of NATO, as NATO, than NATO allows itself to do, as an organization.
Now, the European countries that make up NATO are of course not subject to any kind of “mission statement”, and could have helped. And many should have helped, or helped more.
It could do, but there is no obligation in the alliance.
Article 4 (Consultation): If a member feels its territorial integrity or security is threatened, they can request consultation, which has been used in regional conflicts in the past. In effect, the only obligation EU-NATO has is to participate in a consultation if the USA wants.
Article 5 (Collective Defence): This can only be invoked if a member state is attacked. If a conflict in the Middle East spills over and affects a NATO member—such as Turkey, which borders the region, or if NATO military assets in the area are attacked—Article 5 could be invoked.
Article 6 (Geographic Limitation): Traditionally, Article 5 would only be valid for attacks on members in Europe, North America, or Turkey, on their forces in the Mediterranean Sea, or in the Atlantic (north of the Tropic of Cancer).
So, Nato Article 5 was legitimately triggered in 2001 only because America, a NATO member, was directly attacked. EU countries in NATO at the time (as well as several NATO partners outside of the geographical limitation) answered the call from the USA. As long as action in the Middle East could reasonably be linked to the Article 5 trigger (and with Iraq and Libya, that argument was tenuous to say the least), the USA could count on continued support from NATO members, partners, and allies.
The problem with the current action in Iran is, there never was an Article 4 or 5 trigger. Trump himself made a conscious decision not to initiate an Article 4 consultation, and there was no mechanism for the USA to invoke Article 5 on Israel’s behalf.
Like Ukraine, Israel is north of the Tropic of Cancer, and like Ukraine it is in a partnership forum (Ukraine’s in the Partnership for Peace, Israel’s in The Mediterranean Dialogue.)
There were strong moral arguments that NATO members should’ve rendered assistance to Israel after an egregious assault by a neighboring country, but the key thing is no NATO country was obligated to respond. The same applies with Ukraine - for years, despite obvious proof (including the admissions from Wagner chiefs, Strelkov, and Denisov) that the Russian military and security services were behind the conflict in the Donbas and the land grabs since 2022, many European countries as well as the USA were reluctant to do anything that might risk “poking the bear”.
Well, sorry my American chums, but for the sake of consistency, if “don’t poke the bear” was a good enough excuse for Europe and the USA to dither for years before finally deciding to back Ukraine over Russia in the wake of all moral equivalence collapsing post-Bucha, then “don’t poke the bear” was obviously going to apply as regards Iran.
President Trump has been calling for a US President to take Iran out since the mid 80s, and he’s always had a good point, but he was a total bloody idiot for thinking he could just kick off a military operation on Iran with EU-NATO behind him, after he
(a) froze them completely out of all planning for it,
(b) didn’t even attempt to invoke Article 4,
(c) never reminded anyone that Israel was a NATO partner,
(d) never asked Bibi to publicly ask for NATO help,
(e) even after realising America and Israel would find it tough going without other allies, carried on insulting the people he was hoping would render assistance.
In my humble opinion, because it’s right to support Ukraine after Ukraine was invaded (because has been a reliable NATO partner for years) then it’s right to support Israel too on the exact same basis. By Trump repeatedly arguing that Ukraine’s plight was entirely self-inflicted, NATO mustn’t be putting boots on the ground over Russia-Ukraine, he inadvertently reinforced the argument that the same principle should apply to Israel-Iran.