@89th said:
Is NATO even required to act if the "attack" is from a country (i.e., Iran) responding to an attack by a NATO member (i.e., USA)? And further, isn't Article 5 limited in that attacks in Asia and Africa don't count?
Fairly straightforward although a unanimous decision of the member states offers flexibility:
Key Limitations and Scope of Article 5
Geographic Limitations: Per Article 6, the treaty covers territory in Europe or North America, the Mediterranean Sea, or the North Atlantic area north of the Tropic of Cancer.
Outside Territory & Entities: It does not automatically apply to attacks on bases or territories outside the defined geographical area, such as the Falkland Islands conflict.
No Automatic War Trigger: Article 5 does not mean an immediate automatic military response. Instead, each ally determines "such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area".
Collective Decision Making: The determination that an event qualifies as a triggering incident is made by the 32 member countries acting together via the North Atlantic Council.
Not for Domestic Issues: Purely domestic acts of terrorism or internal armed conflict generally do not trigger Article 5, as the incident must have an international dimension.
Threshold of Attacks: It requires an "armed attack" by a state actor, though recent interpretations include serious, large-scale cyberattacks or hybrid attacks.
Not for Non-Members: The clause does not extend to non-NATO countries, such as Ukraine, regardless of their proximity to the conflict zone.
Exceptions and Nuances
First Use Example: It was invoked for the first time by the United States following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
Expanded Scope: NATO leaders have clarified that Article 5 can cover attacks to, from, or within space, and hybrid actions like cyberattacks.
Spillover Risks: Attacks causing death or destruction across the border of a NATO ally, or causing significant harm to a member, can be interpreted as an armed attack by the council.
In conclusion, Trump is in way over his head and, like any banal narcissist, is looking to blame others for his ineptitude.
