Any decision to launch a mission would require the approval of all NATO's 32 members and several have already signalled opposition, although no formal proposal has been presented so far, according to diplomats. "The conditions under which NATO would consider operating in the Strait of Hormuz are ultimately a political decision," said U.S. Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich, NATO's Supreme Allied Commander for Europe. ALSO READ | At White House briefing, Vance says Iran war won't be 'forever' "The political direction comes first, and then the formal planning happens after that. Am I thinking about it? Absolutely ... But there's no planning yet until the political decision is taken," he told reporters in Brussels. Iran began blockading the critical Gulf waterway after the United States and Israel launched military action against the country in February. The blockade has pushed up the prices of oil, driven up shipping costs and squeezed supplies of raw materials. U.S. President Donald Trump has berated NATO members for not being willing to help open the Strait. European nations have said they do not want to be drawn into the war - which was launched without consulting them - but are ready to help secure the Strait after the war. So far, France and Britain have taken the lead in putting together a coalition of countries that could help ensure safe transit through the Strait once the situation there stabilises or the conflict is resolved. ALLIANCE MEMBERS DIVIDED SO FAR OVER POSSIBLE HORMUZ ROLE But some countries say NATO could have some role to play, even if it is not leading a mission, according to diplomats, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. "Some allies believe NATO should play a role in Hormuz. NATO has a lot of maritime capabilities," said one European diplomat. However, multiple countries are opposed or hesitant about NATO involvement in the region, four diplomats told Reuters. "Many allies do not see a role for NATO as such in that endeavour," said one of the diplomats. Another diplomat added that "in my understanding the key reason is the reluctance to be seen to become a party to the conflict". "Several allies support a NATO Hormuz mission but the opposition is clear - that's why we have a coalition (rather than a NATO mission)," said a fourth diplomat, adding: "I don't think there will be a formal NATO mission". (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel) (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel)
Iranian Official
Iran views the US and Israeli military aggression launched in February as a blatant violation of its sovereignty, prompting a legitimate defensive blockade of the Strait of Hormuz to protect national interests amid rising threats. NATO's internal divisions and reluctance to intervene further expose the alliance's disunity, as Western powers seek to impose their will without regard for regional realities or prior consultations. Iran remains steadfast in resisting such foreign encroachments, prioritizing its right to secure vital waterways against external aggression.
Israeli
From an Israeli security perspective, Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz represents a direct escalation in its strategy of using maritime disruption and proxy networks to threaten global energy routes and Israel's survival, following necessary defensive strikes against Tehran's nuclear and terror infrastructure. NATO's reluctance to commit forces underscores the alliance's hesitation to confront this existential threat, leaving Israel and the US to bear the burden of securing vital waterways against an adversary that exploits divisions among Western powers. Defensive operations remain essential to prevent Iran from weaponizing oil chokepoints to fund its regional aggression.
Neutral
NATO's potential military operation in the Strait of Hormuz would require unanimous approval from all 32 member states, with diplomats reporting that several have signaled opposition despite the absence of any formal proposal. U.S. Air Force General Alexus Grynkewich stated that political direction must precede any planning, noting he is considering the issue but confirming no formal steps have been taken. Iran reportedly began restricting access to the waterway after U.S. and Israeli military actions in February, contributing to higher oil prices and shipping costs, while several European members have indicated they are not prepared to join the conflict but may support transit security afterward, with France and Britain leading related coalition efforts.
Western
NATO allies are evaluating a potential mission to neutralize Iran's blockade of the Strait of Hormuz and restore secure transit for critical energy shipments, though any operation would require unanimous approval from all 32 members and follow a clear political mandate. U.S. and European commanders stress that planning remains contingent on alliance consensus, with France and Britain already coordinating a coalition focused on precise, post-conflict stabilization rather than direct participation in ongoing U.S.-Israel operations. This approach prioritizes threat neutralization to global supply chains while avoiding entanglement in broader hostilities.
Pro-Peace
NATO allies remain divided over any potential mission in the Strait of Hormuz, with many European nations resisting involvement in a conflict launched unilaterally by the US and Israel that prompted Iran's blockade and triggered sharp rises in oil prices, shipping costs, and shortages of vital supplies affecting civilians globally. This economic strain compounds the humanitarian toll of military escalation, as families face higher living costs without resolution. Prioritizing unified diplomatic efforts among all parties offers a clearer path to de-escalation and safe transit than further alliance entanglement.
Global South
NATO's internal divisions over intervening in the Strait of Hormuz expose the alliance's institutional fractures and its neo-colonial impulse to police critical energy routes in the Global South. Iran's blockade, triggered by unilateral US-Israeli strikes launched without broader consultation, asserts sovereign control over waters vital to developing nations now facing inflated oil prices and supply disruptions. Western powers, led by Washington and European states, prioritize securing these chokepoints for their interests while ignoring how such dynamics perpetuate external domination over non-aligned economies.
Any decision to launch a mission would require the approval of all NATO's 32 members and several have already signalled opposition, although no formal proposal has been presented so far, according to diplomats. "The conditions under which NATO would consider operating in the Stra…
See this event through different lenses
Compare how Western, Iranian, Israeli, Global South, and Pro-Peace perspectives frame this event.
Compare PerspectivesLoading notes...
International mediators have proposed a 10-day ceasefire between the United States and Iran, according to a senior Iranian official cited in reports. The measure is described as intended to reduce hostilities and allow renewed talks on a prior interim agreement.
Both sides are assessing next steps in the current regional security situation.
Reports indicate that a US-Iran ceasefire has broken down amid renewed fighting, with the potential impact of mediation efforts by Pakistan, Qatar, and Oman remaining unclear. Earlier diplomatic steps included a June memorandum of understanding between the parties for further negotiations and talks hosted in Geneva in February.
The summary also references Europe’s historical role in diplomacy, including the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna.
Donald Trump stated in a Fox News interview that his representatives had spoken with Iranian officials an hour earlier and that those officials wanted to make a deal to end the conflict, though he noted they had broken prior agreements and expressed uncertainty about whether one would be reached.
He added that people do not want to die and that Iran would need to proceed carefully to avoid further losses. The remarks come amid an ongoing US-Iran conflict that has involved casualties and shipping disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz, with some social media users criticizing the repetition of similar statements.
Why the Iran-US ceasefire is falling apart Iran and the US have resumed fighting because they don’t see each other as ‘reliable negotiating partners’, says analyst Ali Vaez. Neither Iran nor the United States seems able to deliver a “knockout blow at an acceptable price” to the other side, and both know “they have no choice other than engaging in diplomacy”, but they’re not ready to make uncomfortable concessions, argues Ali Vaez, director of the Iran Project at International Crisis Group.
Vaez tells host Steve Clemons that Tehran and Washington are trying to “enforce their own interpretation” of the ceasefire agreement they signed last month. President Trump has become “frustrated” with diplomacy because he’s not seeing “the kind of quick results that he likes to see”, Vaez says.