I'm not sure everyone understands NATO's doctrine...
NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is a political and military alliance formed in 1949, primarily designed as a
DEFENSIVE ALLIANCE to guarantee the freedom and security of its member nations. It operates on the principle of
collective defense, where an attack against one member is considered an attack against all, as enshrined in
Article 5 of its founding treaty.
NATO Article 5, which states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, has been invoked only
once in the alliance’s history. It was triggered on September 12, 2001, by the North Atlantic Council immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
NATO assisted the U.S. under Article 5 following the 9/11 attacks by immediately launching collective defense measures, marking the only time the clause has been triggered. Allies provided direct military support through patrol aircraft and naval forces, followed by long-term commitment to the subsequent conflict in Afghanistan.
NATO is a defensive alliance...not an offensive alliance...meaning their doctrine is to defend a member if they are attacked…
their doctrine is not to join in an offensive engagement unless a member is attacked first…
Trump went on the offensive...the USA was not attacked to start this war...the USA attacked Iran...NATO’s doctrine is only to defend a member that is attacked…
Trump never even discussed his plan to attack Iran with NATO members…now that the US is running out of targets...and the most dangerous objective left is the Straight of Hormuz...with Iran putting a stranglehold on the world's oil...he wants NATO to jump in and save the day...
If you were a member of NATO and I punched you in the nose...they would invoke Article 5 and come to your aid against me...
it’s not in their doctrine to help you if you throw the first punch...this is the principle agreement of Article 5...
Would add, the success of NATO is intangible, as it has stopped attacks, NATO members at peace, mainly, because of it, as those potential attackers calculated the power that would be reigned against them and did not attack.
Trump started the war or excursion [think he even got that wrong and was told it was an INcursion], whether to detract from the Epstein files, fooled by the Israeli leaders, thought it would be easy, or was told there was money to be made, told no other president could do it [especially Obama] or probably a mix of all. Now the world is in the situation because of him, he has no idea how to get out of it and just wants to leave it up to other countries to sort out the mess he has made.
On Iran, terrible awful regime, but look at it from their view, they want a nuclear device, they see it as a protection against being overthrown, Libya, Irag, Syria, all overthrown dictatorships. But not North Korea, Russia, because they have the ability to hit back with the big stick.
Some on here mentioned Iran launching terror attacks on the US mainland, what if the Iranians did an attack, but called it an 'INcursion or EXcursion, would that be OK, as that is what is happening to them. It is just words, same as the news are calling those supporting Iran from Hezbollah and the Houthi are 'Proxies'. They could also be called Allies, is there a difference?
I though of those 160 plus under 10 year old kids the Americans murdered, it was murder, in that school, they were not much of a threat......... unless someone can explain what role they played in the regime? The Americans have just made thousands, tens of, if not hundreds of thousand of lifelong enemies. People just going about their lives, and their son, daughter, brother, sister, neice, nephew, etc was murdered in their school, what would you want to do/want, revenge, vengence, justice........ if they come for these things, can you really blame them, we would all want the same, so i think you will reap what you have sown. People from that part of the world have long memories and a long timeframe, more strategic and long thinking than we are in the West and they sure know how to hold a grudge.
Iran was a democracy, had a well liked democratic government, then in 1953 they decided to nationalise the oil industry. Much to the dislike of the UK and US government, in 1953 the two governments through the secret services organised and overthrew them, put the Shah in place to protect British and US oil companies, the Shah was as, if not more brutal, than the current regime. When the revolution come and the Shah was thrown out, the 1953 uprising was still a big issue for the Iranian people. Long memories, reaping what we sowned.
