As tensions in the Strait of Hormuz rise and Washington pressures allies to step up their engagement, the debate is no longer just about whether NATO has the capacity to contribute, but whether the alliance can withstand another major security test without deepening transatlantic divisions.
At the heart of this debate is a mechanism that has so far been absent from the discussion: Article 4, NATO's consultation clause, which allows allies to convene formally when a member believes its security, territorial integrity, or political independence is threatened.
For retired four-star general Philip Breedlove, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), the lack of consultation is part of the problem.
In an interview with Radio Free Europe (RFE/RL) on May 5, he said that what some present as an "Iranian test" for NATO is also an opportunity to reformat the way the alliance manages crises that arise outside its traditional theater, but which still have direct strategic consequences.
Radio Free Europe: Are we seeing a defining "Iranian test" for NATO or a moment that could expose its limitations? Given Washington's expectations and divisions among allies, what can NATO realistically do and what are its limitations?
Phillip Breedlove: As you know, we have never used Article 4 in NATO for this action. My advice to everyone is to step back from all the pressure tactics and harsh language, and sit down and see this as an opportunity. What can we do together? What pieces can NATO bring to this “puzzle”, and if necessary, even request an Article 4 consultation, so that NATO sees that it is engaged in the ways it is supposed to be engaged when dealing with NATO.
Once we sit down, I believe we can find many areas where NATO can be part of the operation, and I hope it should be. But the key is to stop the tough approach, to stop all the rhetoric in the newspapers, to start real consultations at a cooperative level and to look for opportunities, seeing this as a positive opportunity for our future together.
Radio Free Europe: We are hearing various officials and experts, on both sides, asking whether NATO is structured to deal with such a hybrid “gray zone” crisis in the Strait of Hormuz. Or is it built for another era?
Phillip Breedlove: NATO was built to protect us against our enemy. We still have the same enemy. That enemy is Russia. Finally we have all our documents that acknowledge that Russia is the enemy. Russia has started a theater-level war of aggression in Europe with the attack on Ukraine, and this war, many people are wrong when they talk about it, saying that it will last four to five years. This war is 12 years long. It started in 2014 and it hasn't stopped since.
So NATO is built to defend Europe and NATO allies against our common enemy, which is Vladimir Putin's Russia. So yes, we are built in a certain way, but I would say that there are a lot of capabilities, including mine clearance and other capabilities within NATO, that would be a very good asset to the effort that is happening now in the Persian Gulf. And again, if we step back, tone down the rhetoric and start cooperating and looking at opportunities together, I think we can achieve that.
Radio Free Europe: Take us back to your years as SACEUR. If you were in that position now, what would NATO's involvement look like with regard to Iran?
Phillip Breedlove: NATO involvement would look exactly as the North Atlantic Council (NAC), the alliance's highest decision-making body, would decide.
As you know, the way SACEUR works is that he develops options and presents them to the NAC, which is the real decision-making authority in NATO. That's where all the power and authority is.
Then SACEUR presents the options to the North Atlantic Council, and the NAC decides. That's how NATO works. SACEUR offers a range of options and recommends his preference, and then the NAC reviews them and decides.
If the NAC does not unanimously decide to support the operation, there could be a “coalition of the willing” participating under the NATO banner. So it’s all about proper coordination and level of cooperation, looking for opportunities and moving forward together, rather than fighting in the papers.
Radio Free Europe: What can European militaries realistically contribute to this environment? And, in terms of maritime, do European fleets bring critical mine clearance capabilities that the US does not currently have in this theater?
Phillip Breedlove: I'm not sure the US really "misses" it. We're not using most of our force there. More force could be committed. But I think the US is looking for other countries in the world that do or do not benefit from the flow of oil to join in and help in this process.
Yes, there are several NATO navies with very capable naval assets and very sophisticated anti-missile systems. And, we have two permanent naval mine clearance groups that are always on standby.
So there are tools within NATO that, if NATO engages properly and an agreement is reached, could be a very important part of this effort.
Radio Free Europe: If tensions continue to rise, how important is European support for US operations in the Strait? Given that US Secretary of State Marco Rubio is heading to Rome for discussions with allies, what role do you see for Europe in the next phase of the crisis?
Phillip Breedlove: Personally, I think it's extremely important. Putin and Xi Jinping have given support to Iran. And, Iran feels in a good position because it is currently facing mainly Israel and the US in this operation. And, as long as Iran, Xi and Putin can maneuver to keep the Western allies out of the operation, the entire burden falls on Israel and the US.
This will make the path more difficult for the US, but I believe the US is determined to do what needs to be done, with or without allies. It would simply be better for Xi, Putin and the religious leaders in Iran to see that the US is accompanied by other countries in the Western world that are interested, including South Korea, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and others.
It would be good for these three countries – Russia, China, and Iran – to see that Western nations are united in this effort.
Radio Free Europe: If reports are accurate that Vladimir Putin is actively supporting Iran, including alleged intelligence sharing, doesn't this in itself call for a unified NATO response? And how much does it damage the alliance's cohesion that adversaries appear increasingly coordinated while allies remain divided?
Phillip Breedlove: I said something years ago that people didn't like, but that caught everyone's attention: if your enemy fights against you and you are divided or distracted, he wins.
Essentially, we have an enemy – in this case Iran – backed by two powers that do not wish the United States or the West in general well. And they are united in their effort, while we are not united. And that will be a problem in the long run.
Radio Free Europe: Some allies say this is not their war. But given what you've described, Russia's support for Iran and Iran's parallel support for Russia in Ukraine. Doesn't this expand the conflict into a broader security challenge for the alliance?
Phillip Breedlove: When I was SACEUR, I realized that I cannot dictate individual policies to sovereign states. Sovereign states must make their own decisions about whether to support or not.
And, I think many of them, if they do the math, will understand what this means for them: yes, they didn't start this war, but now we have a war that is seriously affecting the energy capabilities of other countries in the West and some allies in the Far East.
The hope is that when these sovereign states decide whether to get involved or not, they will see the value in not allowing Xi, Putin, and the regime in Iran to dictate energy costs and policies.
Radio Free Europe: What avenues exist now that could reduce tensions without showing weakness to NATO?
Phillip Breedlove: They [NATO allies] either have to decide to get involved, or create a coalition of the willing or individual states to get involved, or they don't. So they're not currently engaged.
Radio Free Europe: Regarding the Strait of Hormuz, President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US does not depend on the strait in the same way as the Europeans, and that the Europeans who benefit from it should intervene. Without the US, can they do it alone?
Phillip Breedlove: I think it would be very difficult for NATO to do this without the US. We have an alliance. Why not take this opportunity to work properly as allies together and solve this? That is, I think, the path we should follow.
Radio Free Europe: Finally, General. Does NATO risk appearing divided at a time when its adversaries, including Russia, China and Iran, appear increasingly coordinated? Does this crisis strengthen the alliance's unity or risk accelerating transatlantic drift?
Phillip Breedlove: This is much bigger than NATO, much bigger. China is looking at this and is probably more pleased than ever. They see the West divided. Putin has been trying to separate the US from NATO all his life as the leader of Russia. He must be extremely pleased with what he is seeing. We are giving Putin the greatest gift he has ever received as a leader, and we have to find a way to fix this.
The enemies of the West should not see the West divided among itself, and the leaders of the West, if they understand the signal we are sending to Xi and Putin through our division, should stop and reconsider where we are. And, I believe, that is important.
That's why I said: we have an opportunity now to fix this, to put it in the right context, and then to collaborate to get out of this problem.
t7 live
