Nournews: According to media reports, NATO is scheduled to convene in Ankara today. Although news agencies indicate that the meeting will focus on "maritime security" and "freedom of navigation" in the Strait of Hormuz, it is ultimately confronted with a more fundamental question: Can decisions about the Strait truly be made without recognizing Iran as the most significant geopolitical reality shaping this strategic waterway?

Reports emerging ahead of the meeting point to a clear divide between the United States and some of its European allies. Washington is reportedly dissatisfied with efforts by London and Paris, facilitated by Oman, to develop an alternative framework for managing security in the Strait of Hormuz. The United States continues to favor any security arrangement being established under its own direct leadership and oversight. Europe, by contrast, appears less focused on geopolitical competition with Iran and more concerned with safeguarding energy security, preserving the stability of global markets, and preventing another crisis in the Persian Gulf. These differing priorities have effectively turned the Ankara meeting into another venue exposing divisions within NATO.

Behind these disagreements, however, lies a reality that neither the United States nor Europe can ignore: Iran.

The Strait of Hormuz is not merely a maritime passage whose future can be determined behind closed doors. It is part of a regional geopolitical landscape in which Iran possesses the longest coastline, the most extensive security capabilities, and one of the most significant historical roles. This position is not the product of political agreements but of geography—and unlike political alliances, geography does not change with governments or international summits.

Consequently, any initiative that seeks to establish security in the Strait by excluding, marginalizing, or circumventing Iran's legitimate rights is likely to face both a crisis of legitimacy and a crisis of effectiveness before it can even be implemented. Maritime security cannot realistically be ensured against one of the principal littoral states of the waterway itself.

Significantly, even reports highlighting disagreements between Washington and Europe inadvertently reinforce this reality. They suggest that several European governments have concluded that no sustainable framework for managing maritime traffic in the Strait can succeed without taking Iran's role into account. Furthermore, according to published reports, the recent memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States also envisages a substantial Iranian role in regulating maritime transit and facilitating the gradual restoration of normal navigation. This indicates that the very country some had long sought to exclude from the Hormuz equation has once again become central to it.

This does not, however, imply endorsement of every European proposal. The idea of deploying a multinational military mission, although presented under the banner of protecting freedom of navigation, could itself become a source of greater security tensions if pursued without the agreement of the littoral states and without full respect for their sovereignty. Experience over recent decades has repeatedly shown that the militarization of the Persian Gulf has generated more mistrust than security.

If NATO intends for the Ankara meeting to send a responsible message to the international community, it must choose between two approaches. It can continue pursuing geopolitical rivalry and policies of containment, thereby adding further complexity to an already fragile situation. Alternatively, it can base its decisions on the region's geographical and legal realities.

Those realities are clear. First, the Strait of Hormuz is an international waterway whose security is of vital importance to the global economy. Second, the Strait lies adjacent to the territories of its littoral states, and no security arrangement can endure without their participation and consent. Third, Iran is not an external actor but one of the principal pillars of regional security, whose legitimate rights, responsibilities, and interests must be respected in any lasting framework.

The Ankara meeting should not foster the impression that the future of the Strait of Hormuz can be determined without Iran. Such an assumption is incompatible with international law, geopolitical realities, and the historical experience of the region. Sustainable security in the Strait will emerge only from a balanced framework that recognizes the legitimate rights of all littoral states—particularly Iran—rather than from demonstrations of naval power or coalitions designed outside the region to dictate its future.

Perhaps the most important message for NATO is this: the Strait of Hormuz can indeed be managed, but only if decision-makers acknowledge that no viable, durable, or legitimate framework for this strategic waterway can exist without respecting Iran's rights and recognizing Tehran's indispensable role.