this post was submitted on 05 Mar 2026
24 points (92.9% liked)
Canada
1764 readers
12 users here now
English
This is a community dedicated to Canada and Canadians!
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to Canada or Canadians
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Français
Il s'agit d'une communauté dédiée au Canada et aux Canadiens !
Règles
- Les postes doivent être pertinentes pour le Canada ou les Canadiens
- Pas de désinformation
- Pas de contenu NSFW
- Pas de discours de haine, de sectarisme, etc.
Related Communities / Communautés associées
Community icon by CustomDesign on MYICONFINDER, licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That doesn't say what you say it does, though. There's no exception regarding "who started it" included in that passage. It simply states that any attack against a member nation is considered an attack against all of them, etc.
The only condition implied is that the attack must occur in Europe or North America...so, if Iran decides to attack a NATO member directly, Article 5 could be invoked.
It says exactly what I say it does. The US is the attacker. Unless Iran attacks a country which is not the US, Article 5 doesn't apply.
It explicitly says in self-defence as per the UN charter. The US is not responding in self defence, they are the belligerent nation.
Which part actually says that? You quoted two paragraphs, and nowhere in there does it condition Article 5 based on how the conflict started. It's only based on whether or not a NATO member is attacked. If a member nation requires defending, then Article 5 takes effect
You're also ignoring the fact that Canada would have to get involved if Iran attacked any NATO member...not just the US. There were already concerns yesterday over a missile that ended up in Turkey, but so far they haven't invoked Article 5. If Iran continues to fire missiles at them, that may change...and the rest of NATO will be obligated to come to their defense.
The US may have started this, but that doesn't negate the terms of the treaty. If anything it puts those terms on the table, ready to activate at a moment's notice. So far, thankfully, no one else seems that eager to get involved. But that will change if Iran actually targets a member state directly.
It entirely does. NATO is a defence pact, not a mandatory requirement to go to war just because. It was specifically designed to be defensive, so no NATO country could be the aggressor and have the others forced to support them. Exactly as is happening now.
Yes. And if Iran defends itself, that is not an attack, it's a defence.
The NATO charter also specifically calls out article 51 of the UN charter which states that while a country can defend itself, it cannot "affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security".
Not only can the US not claim that article 5 would apply, that have violated the UN charter.
Again, the US cannot be the victim of an attack it started. Any military assets of the US that Iran attacks, are not covered by article 5. Any non-military assets are war crimes and the UN charter and the Geneva conventions, which Iran is a signatory of and would be dealt with by the UN, and not NATO.
Ok. So, you have the same definition of "self-defense" that Israel has been using to justify bombing Gaza into dust for the last two and a half years now. It's not a valid definition of "self-defense". You can't just use an attack to justify perpetual retaliation. That quickly slides away from being a "defensive action", and eventually winds up being considered a "hostile action".
Iran absolutely has the right to defend itself against US attacks...but that definition of "defense" does not extend to attacking the US civilian population or even targeting US domestic infrastructure. They can retaliate against US military targets abroad until the cows come home, and legitimately call it "defense"...but if they park a submarine off the coast of Florida and launch missile strikes against US cities...they have now crossed the line into "attacking" the US. Even targeting civilians at all, should reasonably nullify any claims of "self-defense".
And that would absolutely trigger Article 5. NATO would be required to come to their defense.
You completely made that up in your mind. I said the UN would be responsible if Iran committed war crimes, not NATO.
And this right there proves you don't understand what Article 5 actually says.
You seem to have an understanding of the NATO charter gleaned entirely from headlines. Article 5 states, "an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all"
AGAIN... the US is the aggressor. The US has already committed war crimes against Iran. The US has broken the rules defined in the UN charter and the NATO charter specifically calls out, "collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations". The US, being the aggressor and in contravention of the UN charter, does not get coverage from article 5 of the NATO charter.
The only way in this case the collective defence clause can be trigger is if a non-US NATO country is attacked by Iran.
You obviously don't understand what I'm saying here. The way you are defining "self-defense" is wrong. Just because the US attacked Iran first, does not give Iran a blank check to attack the US directly. Two wrongs don't make a right. This is exactly how Israel has justified its genocide in Gaza. They think that just because Hamas attacked them on Oct 7th, they have every right to pound Gaza I to dust, all in the name of "self-defense". Except what they are doing stopped being self-defense once they started attacking hospitals, schools, apartment buildings, water and electrical infrastructure.
Just "being attacked" does not mean that everything you do afterwards is "self-defense". It also doesn't mean that the country that attacked them "deserves" to be destroyed. The civilians who live there are not guilty of the crimes committed by their government...even if they voted for that government.
Attacking them is not "self-defense", no matter who struck first.
It's weird that you say that I don't understand what that says, then you move onto this...
If you read the quote you provided..."an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all"...it says nothing there about whether or not it's unprovoked, or anything at all about who did what to whom. Not one word of that carries the context you are inserting into it. If it did carry those conditions...it would say so, right there in the text.
An "armed attack" is literally just that...an armed attack. Whether or not that attack was unprovoked, makes no difference. If a NATO member is under attack, everyone else in the alliance is obligated to defend them.
However, this has always been understood to mean a direct attack against a member nation. If the US is fighting a war of its own making somewhere else, then article 5 is not triggered. But if the United States itself is attacked for whatever reason, it would be. Just like if Iran fired missiles directly at Germany or Canada or Denmark. "An armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all." That means exactly what it says.
The US is in violation of the UN charter. Article 5 doesn't apply.
You are making disingenuous arguments. By your logic, if Iran counter attacks US forces, that we are required to declare war on Iran because they attacked US forces. That is completely, and blatantly false.
It does.
It's pretty clear.
Again, you don't understand it. Because even NATO itself doesn't interpret that clause in that way.
So, no. It's not just "an armed attack". NATO as an organization understands nuance.
So the US would need to ask for article 5 to be invoked, and the other countries get to review and decide if they want to. Is the US going to get every member to unanimously agree that it should happen? Fuck no. This is the part of the rules where we can say, "You started this shit, it's your problem to deal with."
Now let's play pretend for a moment and say it does get consensus.
So, it is very easy for a NATO member to say, Hey Don, this is a FAFO situation. You did the FA, now time to FO. No one needs to provide military assistance.
We could choose an extremely benign form of assistance. Like helping evacuate civilians from affected areas, or provide hospitals with medical supplies, or any of a number of non-military options.
There will NEVER be a point where any non-US NATO member is forced into a shooting war with Iran unless they are directly attacked. And there is no obligation for any NATO member to join the US in a shooting war.
My original statement stands 100%
That's not what I said, at all. I'm starting to understand your confusion. You aren't reading what I'm writing.
I have said several times now, that article 5 does not kick in, unless a member nation is DIRECTLY attacked. I have also stated several times that it does not apply to forces abroad. I was also very clear in one comment in particular that Iran has every right to defend themselves against military targets that are attacking them. They just wouldn't be able to justify attacking civilian targets within the US, without it being considered an "attack" on the United States itself. THAT would trigger article 5.
If you're going to argue so hard, try paying attention to what the other person is actually saying.
That's not what article 51 says. It simply states that any UN member nation has the right to self-defense...and allows for collective self-defense agreements to be made between members. That's all. It doesn't say, "except when the member nation is the aggressor", or "except when the member nation has recently committed war crimes". That's not in there. It's also not in the NATO charter either. You keep making that up.
By all means, quote the actual text where it says what you say it does. We're talking about legally binding text. If conditions like the ones you are describing are supposed to be in there...it will state them in the text. So please, quote it. So far all you've done is quote the parts that don't say that.
As for the rest of what you did quote, none of that negates what I'm saying or confirms you're saying. That just details the specifics of how NATO members are obligated to respond. Yes, NATO members can determine for themselves whether or not an "attack" actually occurred. They can also determine for themselves the type and amount of assistance they will provide in defense of their allies.
So what? How does that change anything? If Iran launched missiles at say, New York city...would there be any doubt about whether that constitutes an "attack" against the US? Any NATO member that tried to argue "that didn't count because FAFO", would most likely be declaring their intention to leave the alliance in the process. Member nations don't have to follow each other into wars that other members have started...but they are obligated to defend each other from obvious attacks.
If all that means is that they send ships to patrol the US coastline, or send emergency crews into New York to help with clean-up and casualties...then they've fulfilled their obligations. But refusing to provide something in defense or support of each other, would violate the agreement. Unlike the UN Charter, NATO's article 5 is binding. While there is flexibility regarding how they fulfill their obligations, they can't just "opt-out" altogether, when it's convenient.