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.

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.

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.

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.