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 says nothing there about whether or not it's unprovoked, or anything at all about who did what to whom

It does.

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.

It's pretty clear.

An "armed attack" is literally just that...an armed attack.

Again, you don't understand it. Because even NATO itself doesn't interpret that clause in that way.

However, what amounts to an ‘armed attack’ in the context of Article 5 must be assessed on a case-by-case basis and is not limited to traditional notions of overt military strikes by a state actor.

So, no. It's not just "an armed attack". NATO as an organization understands nuance.

The obligation to assist an Ally “forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties” arises when two conditions are met:

an Ally has sustained an ‘armed attack’ as described above (the assessment of which is to be conducted in good faith by all Allies, whether individually or collectively), and the attacked Ally requests or consents to collective action under Article 5. An attacked Ally may choose not to seek assistance under Article 5, and instead address the situation through other avenues.

Consensus decision-making is a fundamental principle. It has been accepted as the sole basis for decision-making in NATO since the creation of the Alliance in 1949. Consensus decision-making means that there is no voting at NATO. Consultations take place until a decision that is acceptable to all is reached.

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.

It is up to individual Allies to determine how they will implement the mutual assistance obligation, so long as their efforts can be regarded as consistent with what is necessary “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” Action pursuant to Article 5 may or may not involve the use of armed force.

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.

When Article 5 is triggered, each Ally is obliged to assist the attacked Ally or Allies by taking “such action as it deems necessary” to respond to the situation.

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%

Even if the US did invoke article 5, NATO members don't have to participate, because the US started it. You cannot be the aggressor and then claim self-defence.