NATO in Hormuz Is Not Mission Creep
By Vytautas Leškevičius
June 05, 2026
U.S. Navy
Every few years, NATO rediscovers an old argument.
The location changes. The actors change. The crises change. Yet the debate remains remarkably familiar: should the Alliance concern itself only with defending Allied territory, or can it legitimately act when developments beyond its borders threaten Allied security?
Today, that question is resurfacing in connection with Iran and the Strait of Hormuz. The prospect of some form of NATO involvement in safeguarding freedom of navigation is already prompting predictable objections. Hormuz is not NATO territory. Iran is not attacking an Ally. Therefore, the argument goes, NATO should stay out.
At first glance, this position appears prudent. In reality, it reflects something else: a surprisingly short institutional memory.
For much of the last three decades, NATO has operated on the assumption that Allied security cannot be defined solely by geography. Indeed, for a generation, the Alliance spent more time conducting operations beyond its borders than preparing for major territorial defence within them. From Bosnia and Kosovo to Afghanistan, from Operation Active Endeavour in the Mediterranean to Operation Ocean Shield off the Horn of Africa, NATO repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to protect Allied interests beyond the boundaries of the Washington Treaty area.
These were not exceptional departures from NATO's mission. They became part of it.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2026/06/05/nato_in_hormuz_is_not_mission_creep_1186961.html
