No, I’m not talking about Greenland or Ukraine or tariffs or other forms of economic coercion or nationalized bullying.
U.S. President Donald Trump had a ‘warning’ for his NATO allies over the weekend – help the U.S. secure the Strait of Hormuz or suffer a “very bad future” as a consequence of the Iran war and the oil shock.
“It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump told the Financial Times.
globalnews.ca
“If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”
(In 2023, Congress enacted a law that prohibits the President from "suspend[ing], terminat[ing], denounc[ing], or withdraw[ing] the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty"—which established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—without the advice and consent of the Senate or an act of Congress
)
On Monday, Trump said “numerous countries” had told him they were “on the way” to help the U.S. with the Strait of Hormuz?
But Trump’s demands (not requests) have been met with a mixed response from countries around the world, including from U.S. allies.
Article Five of the NATO charter says an attack against (but does that mean “by”?) any NATO member will be treated like an attack on the whole alliance, but some experts say NATO allies are unclear on whether this is a NATO war.
“The U.S. administration has demonstrated over the past two weeks that it does not have a clear coherent strategy when it comes to this current conflict,” said Kevin Budning, director of scientific research at the CDA Institute.
“I don’t think Donald Trump gives his NATO allies any assurances that he has a clear policy,” Budning said, pointing to the changing rationale for why the U.S. launched the military operation, like the Trump administration officials have offered various and conflicting explanations for the war, such as to ward off an imminent Iranian threat, to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets after an expected Israeli attack on Iran, to destroy Iran's missileand military capabilities, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to secure Iran's natural resources, and to achieve regime change by bringing the Iranian opposition to power, etc…
Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz after the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iran more than two weeks ago, which kicked off an ongoing wave of repeated Iranian strikes across the Middle East and into neighbouring Gulf states.
Several U.S. allies said on Monday they had no immediate plans to send ships to unblock the Strait of Hormuz.
Germany, Spain and Italy were among allies that ruled out participating in any mission in the Gulf, at least for now.
Other countries were more circumspect, with Britain and Denmark saying they would consider ways they might help, but emphasizing a need to de-escalate and avoid getting dragged into the war.
China is noncommittal. France said they help when “circumstances permit.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that Britain is working with allies on a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but “will not be drawn into the wider war.”
Australia’s Transport Minister Catherine King told Australian Broadcasting Corp. on Monday that “we won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz,” although she wasn’t aware of such a request from the U.S.
NATO members states may be walking a fine line, Budning said, trying to not upset Trump.“You might see some carrots and sticks,” he said.
“I think this is demonstrated in Canada’s policy where it supported the war, but it doesn’t want to intervene in the war. Canada is also considering its (bilateral) relationship with the United States,” he said, pointing to the upcoming trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S.
“Canada was not consulted, did not participate, and has no plans to participate in the offensive actions against Iran that are being undertaken by the U.S. and Israel,” a PMO readout stated last week.
Iranian strikes on NATO targets in the region might draw the alliance into the conflict, said Joseph Varner, a senior fellow with the McDonald-Laurier Institute, as opposed to Trumps threats and demands.
“They (Iranian IRGC) fired three ballistic missiles at Turkey, they’ve (the IRGC) hit the French naval facilities in the UAE, they (Guess who?) struck the camp that had Canadians in Kuwait, they’ve (IRGC) gone after the military bases in Iraq that have both Spanish and Italian forces at them,” he said.
“Whether or not NATO likes this, and whether or not they feel that they were properly consulted, the fact of the matter is that this has been dragged to the doorstep of NATO.”
In the end, tough call, as the argument could be made that this war started long before 02/28/26.
But tougher is justifying that this was due to an imminent threat of attack from Iran upon a NATO member…
U.S. President Donald Trump had a ‘warning’ for his NATO allies over the weekend – help the U.S. secure the Strait of Hormuz or suffer a “very bad future” as a consequence of the Iran war and the oil shock.
“It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the Strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump told the Financial Times.
Trump warns NATO to help secure Strait of Hormuz or face ‘very bad future’ - National | Globalnews.ca
About a fifth of global oil and liquefied natural gas normally passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage of water between Iran and Oman.
globalnews.ca
“If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of NATO.”(In 2023, Congress enacted a law that prohibits the President from "suspend[ing], terminat[ing], denounc[ing], or withdraw[ing] the United States from the North Atlantic Treaty"—which established the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)—without the advice and consent of the Senate or an act of Congress)On Monday, Trump said “numerous countries” had told him they were “on the way” to help the U.S. with the Strait of Hormuz?But Trump’s demands (not requests) have been met with a mixed response from countries around the world, including from U.S. allies.
Article Five of the NATO charter says an attack against (but does that mean “by”?) any NATO member will be treated like an attack on the whole alliance, but some experts say NATO allies are unclear on whether this is a NATO war.
“The U.S. administration has demonstrated over the past two weeks that it does not have a clear coherent strategy when it comes to this current conflict,” said Kevin Budning, director of scientific research at the CDA Institute.
“I don’t think Donald Trump gives his NATO allies any assurances that he has a clear policy,” Budning said, pointing to the changing rationale for why the U.S. launched the military operation, like the Trump administration officials have offered various and conflicting explanations for the war, such as to ward off an imminent Iranian threat, to pre-empt Iranian retaliation against US assets after an expected Israeli attack on Iran, to destroy Iran's missileand military capabilities, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to secure Iran's natural resources, and to achieve regime change by bringing the Iranian opposition to power, etc…
Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz after the United States and Israel launched attacks against Iran more than two weeks ago, which kicked off an ongoing wave of repeated Iranian strikes across the Middle East and into neighbouring Gulf states.
Several U.S. allies said on Monday they had no immediate plans to send ships to unblock the Strait of Hormuz.
Germany, Spain and Italy were among allies that ruled out participating in any mission in the Gulf, at least for now.
Other countries were more circumspect, with Britain and Denmark saying they would consider ways they might help, but emphasizing a need to de-escalate and avoid getting dragged into the war.
China is noncommittal. France said they help when “circumstances permit.”
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Monday that Britain is working with allies on a plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, but “will not be drawn into the wider war.”
Australia’s Transport Minister Catherine King told Australian Broadcasting Corp. on Monday that “we won’t be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz,” although she wasn’t aware of such a request from the U.S.
NATO members states may be walking a fine line, Budning said, trying to not upset Trump.“You might see some carrots and sticks,” he said.
“I think this is demonstrated in Canada’s policy where it supported the war, but it doesn’t want to intervene in the war. Canada is also considering its (bilateral) relationship with the United States,” he said, pointing to the upcoming trade negotiations between Canada and the U.S.
“Canada was not consulted, did not participate, and has no plans to participate in the offensive actions against Iran that are being undertaken by the U.S. and Israel,” a PMO readout stated last week.
Iranian strikes on NATO targets in the region might draw the alliance into the conflict, said Joseph Varner, a senior fellow with the McDonald-Laurier Institute, as opposed to Trumps threats and demands.
“They (Iranian IRGC) fired three ballistic missiles at Turkey, they’ve (the IRGC) hit the French naval facilities in the UAE, they (Guess who?) struck the camp that had Canadians in Kuwait, they’ve (IRGC) gone after the military bases in Iraq that have both Spanish and Italian forces at them,” he said.
“Whether or not NATO likes this, and whether or not they feel that they were properly consulted, the fact of the matter is that this has been dragged to the doorstep of NATO.”
In the end, tough call, as the argument could be made that this war started long before 02/28/26.But tougher is justifying that this was due to an imminent threat of attack from Iran upon a NATO member…
