Will NATO get involved in securing Strait of Hormuz?
War on Iran overshadows defence alliance’s summit in Turkiye. The leaders of NATO member states met in Ankara, ostensibly to discuss increasing defence investment and long-term military support for U
War on Iran overshadows defence alliance’s summit in Turkiye. The leaders of NATO member states met in Ankara, ostensibly to discuss increasing defen
Read Full Story at Al Jazeera →Why This Matters
The NATO summit in Ankara arrives at a precarious moment when the specter of a broader Middle East conflict looms larger than any single crisis in decades. While the alliance’s official agenda focuses on defense spending and strategic investment, the unspoken question of Iran’s nuclear ambitions and regional aggression casts a long shadow. If NATO signals even indirect support for securing the Strait of Hormuz—a critical chokepoint for global oil supplies—it could redefine the alliance’s role beyond Europe’s borders, testing its unity and purpose in a post-Cold War world where maritime security is no longer a peripheral concern.
Background Context
NATO’s engagement in the Middle East has historically been limited, constrained by geographic distance, legal mandates, and member states’ divergent interests. The 2011 Libyan intervention remains the alliance’s only direct combat operation outside the Euro-Atlantic region, and even that was framed as a humanitarian crisis rather than a strategic imperative. Meanwhile, Iran’s Revolutionary Guard has repeatedly threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz in response to sanctions or perceived threats, a move that would disrupt 20% of the world’s oil supply. Turkey, as a NATO member and regional power, finds itself caught between its alliance obligations and its economic ties to Iran, complicating any potential consensus.
What Happens Next
The alliance’s response will likely hinge on whether Iran escalates its provocations in the strait or if a major incident—such as an attack on a NATO-member vessel—occurs. Public statements may emphasize deterrence, but behind closed doors, divisions could emerge between hawks like the U.S. and France and more cautious members like Germany or Italy, whose energy security depends on stable Iranian oil flows. A symbolic show of support, such as joint naval patrols or enhanced intelligence sharing, could be the most NATO can muster without fracturing internal cohesion, while a direct military role would risk drawing the alliance into a conflict it has avoided for decades.
Bigger Picture
This moment reflects a broader shift in NATO’s strategic calculus, where traditional territorial defense is increasingly intertwined with global supply chain security and energy geopolitics. The alliance’s reluctance to fully commit to Middle East security mirrors its struggles to adapt to a multipolar world where threats like cyber warfare and drone strikes are as critical as conventional armies. Should NATO take a
