The US were not under attack and ignorant how it would turn out even though we all knew. This ‘war’ began on an empty premise. Does Article 5 still apply?
This is a very timely and genuinely helpful explainer. One of the challenges in moments like this is that public debate tends to move straight to slogans about alliances and obligations without pausing to read the actual text of the treaty. I really appreciate the clear walk-through of what Article 5 does — and just as importantly, what it doesn’t automatically require. Pieces like this are a real public service because they give readers the tools to think about these issues more carefully.
I think it will help anyone who reads it and I suspect it will also be shared beyond substack via email etc by people. Very helpful and grounding explainer.
As an American, if Iran manages a counter attack against the United States, and Canada (or anybody in NATO, really), steps in to help us when our coward-in-chief tries to invoke Article 5, I'll be severely pissed at all of you. Don't pull his teeny tiny chestnuts out of the fire. Let them incinerate.
As a Canadian I am still angry that enough Americans voted for or settled for Trump because they didn't like the idea of an African Asian woman being president and then had the nerves to claim this isn't what they voted for despite knowing what Trump did last time.
Thank you so much for the details that you included in your article about NATO and what our, Canadian, response would have to be to Rumps war against Iran.
They did an excellent job of writing and composing the articles in the NATO Treaty . I'm sure none of them ever considered that the US, who was supposed to be the defender of NATO countries would go rogue
I cannot see any Canadian wanting to go to war to support his efforts, especially since he has been so adverse to NATO and has said that it's a worthless organization.
Mr. rump you cannot have it both ways. There is no evidence that I ran was going to attack the US.
But it was convenient for you to start this war so people would be talking about it instead of digging deeper into the Epstein files.
But, you and your detestable cohorts that are included in the Epstein files, did not count on the ground swell around the world that are searching out these records day and night. People, especially women, are not standing back and letting the survivors down again.
Thanks for the clarification of this issue. Now we have to do what we can to make sure that those who may have to make decisions about Article 5 understand the nuances as well!
Excellent article. Thanks so much for sending/posting this. I am an American and have fought for my country. However, I grew up on the shores of Canada and I love Canada, my second home. I never want Canada to risk itself for the U.S. as it is currently under the "leadership" of greedy warmongers. Stay strong and protect yourself, Canada. Thank you, Canada Returnee and for "Canada Resists", Hugo our Canadian Support Dog, for all you do.
Thanks for bringing the Article 5 issue forward. Very important right now, when many Canadians are somewhat confused. You identified exactly what most Canadians need to be reassured about: "What this means is that if America launches offensive military strikes against Iran, and Iran retaliates by targeting the military bases responsible for those strikes, Iran’s response is the right to self-defence that Article 5 recognizes. NATO members could not invoke collective defence on behalf of a member whose own aggression led to retaliation."
This means we do not have to support the aggressor.
However, this "escape clause" is more clear cut than the point about geography. The North Atlantic aspect of the treaty becomes somewhat nebulous when it regards the strikes on, for example, the UK armed forces bases on Cyprus (Akrotiri and Dhekelia) which are not in the North Atlantic, but are considered British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), which means they are technically under British sovereignty. Muddy.
Article 5 leaves Canada real choice in how to respond. The treaty requires only "such action as it deems necessary." Our House of Commons defence committee quoted that line in their 2018 report on NATO. It means Ottawa decides the level of support instead of automatic troops. Canada stepped up by leading the Latvia battlegroup. Good reminder for any future debates in Parliament. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9972815/nddnrp10/nddnrp10-e.pdf
The fact that article 25 I believe you said, states that this was for the North Atlantic protection, which would include Canada and the US as well as European countries. According to my remembrance of geographical locations, Iran is nowhere near that area.
I believe any geolocation of this incursion into Iran was based on where Donald Trump was pointing his finger at the map. He apparently confused the Atlantic for the Indian Ocean…
Good article, thanks for posting it. We all need clear information when so much BS gets carelessly spread around.
The US were not under attack and ignorant how it would turn out even though we all knew. This ‘war’ began on an empty premise. Does Article 5 still apply?
No, unless Iran was stupid enough to attack them in Europe and North America to give Trump an excuse to invoke Article 5
Very clear breakdown. Thank you.
Glad it is helpful and thank you again for your support
This is very helpful. Thank you for this!
Thanks for reading and for your support
This is a very timely and genuinely helpful explainer. One of the challenges in moments like this is that public debate tends to move straight to slogans about alliances and obligations without pausing to read the actual text of the treaty. I really appreciate the clear walk-through of what Article 5 does — and just as importantly, what it doesn’t automatically require. Pieces like this are a real public service because they give readers the tools to think about these issues more carefully.
Hope this is helpful given how many people including Canadians have no clue how it works
I think it will help anyone who reads it and I suspect it will also be shared beyond substack via email etc by people. Very helpful and grounding explainer.
I really hope so given most local Canadians I've met think they have First Amendment rights or that China is a socialist democracy.
No. Refer to professor poutine.
Ok
As an American, if Iran manages a counter attack against the United States, and Canada (or anybody in NATO, really), steps in to help us when our coward-in-chief tries to invoke Article 5, I'll be severely pissed at all of you. Don't pull his teeny tiny chestnuts out of the fire. Let them incinerate.
As a Canadian I am still angry that enough Americans voted for or settled for Trump because they didn't like the idea of an African Asian woman being president and then had the nerves to claim this isn't what they voted for despite knowing what Trump did last time.
Me too.
With family in the military it is very scary
Yes and for the country. Hence wrote about this to hopefully clarify how it is supposed to work
Thank you so much for the details that you included in your article about NATO and what our, Canadian, response would have to be to Rumps war against Iran.
They did an excellent job of writing and composing the articles in the NATO Treaty . I'm sure none of them ever considered that the US, who was supposed to be the defender of NATO countries would go rogue
I cannot see any Canadian wanting to go to war to support his efforts, especially since he has been so adverse to NATO and has said that it's a worthless organization.
Mr. rump you cannot have it both ways. There is no evidence that I ran was going to attack the US.
But it was convenient for you to start this war so people would be talking about it instead of digging deeper into the Epstein files.
But, you and your detestable cohorts that are included in the Epstein files, did not count on the ground swell around the world that are searching out these records day and night. People, especially women, are not standing back and letting the survivors down again.
Thanks for your kind words and thoughts. I hope the piece clarifies some things about how NATO is supposed to work
I reposted so hope it gets the word out farther
Thanks for the clarification of this issue. Now we have to do what we can to make sure that those who may have to make decisions about Article 5 understand the nuances as well!
Thank you for your support and happy to know this is helping address any concerns about NATO and Article 5 as Trump keeps terrorizing Iran
Excellent article. Thanks so much for sending/posting this. I am an American and have fought for my country. However, I grew up on the shores of Canada and I love Canada, my second home. I never want Canada to risk itself for the U.S. as it is currently under the "leadership" of greedy warmongers. Stay strong and protect yourself, Canada. Thank you, Canada Returnee and for "Canada Resists", Hugo our Canadian Support Dog, for all you do.
Sorry and apologies that I can't always tell you what you want to hear like Canada Resists
That said hope this piece is helpful
Excellent question! Thank you for this
Thanks and yep- some of us spend a lot of time on geopolitics right now. Maybe too much 🤔
Glad I’m not the only one!
Seconded
Thanks and happy to help
Thanks for bringing the Article 5 issue forward. Very important right now, when many Canadians are somewhat confused. You identified exactly what most Canadians need to be reassured about: "What this means is that if America launches offensive military strikes against Iran, and Iran retaliates by targeting the military bases responsible for those strikes, Iran’s response is the right to self-defence that Article 5 recognizes. NATO members could not invoke collective defence on behalf of a member whose own aggression led to retaliation."
This means we do not have to support the aggressor.
However, this "escape clause" is more clear cut than the point about geography. The North Atlantic aspect of the treaty becomes somewhat nebulous when it regards the strikes on, for example, the UK armed forces bases on Cyprus (Akrotiri and Dhekelia) which are not in the North Atlantic, but are considered British Sovereign Base Areas (SBAs), which means they are technically under British sovereignty. Muddy.
War is Hell. 😥
❤️🇨🇦
Yes but the UK didn't invoke Article 5
As far as I understand, Cyprus is not part of NATO.
Not yet. ❤️🇨🇦
I’m going to give the same response as your previous comment 👆🏼👆🏼
Thank you for such a thorough description of this.
Thanks for the support
Article 5 leaves Canada real choice in how to respond. The treaty requires only "such action as it deems necessary." Our House of Commons defence committee quoted that line in their 2018 report on NATO. It means Ottawa decides the level of support instead of automatic troops. Canada stepped up by leading the Latvia battlegroup. Good reminder for any future debates in Parliament. https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/421/NDDN/Reports/RP9972815/nddnrp10/nddnrp10-e.pdf
Thanks for further elaborating. It's frustrating when enough Canadians don't know how things work or believe it's similar to the US of A
The fact that article 25 I believe you said, states that this was for the North Atlantic protection, which would include Canada and the US as well as European countries. According to my remembrance of geographical locations, Iran is nowhere near that area.
I believe any geolocation of this incursion into Iran was based on where Donald Trump was pointing his finger at the map. He apparently confused the Atlantic for the Indian Ocean…
Yes that is obvious unless Iran is stupid enough to directly attack NATO member states and give Trump an excuse to invoke Article 5
Thank you. I’m an American and had no idea how NATO worked. Thanks for the clear explanation.
Thanks for reading and glad it is helpful. Please share to others who may need this and thanks again for your support