Although the NATO leaders' summit in Ankara was intended to project strength, unity, and collective resolve, developments on the ground and the broader international landscape have revealed an alliance facing an unprecedented crisis of credibility, strategic divisions, and political contradictions. What emerged in Ankara was less the image of a cohesive alliance than an effort to conceal disagreements that continue to deepen, from the war in Ukraine and developments in the Middle East to defense burden-sharing and the future of transatlantic relations.

NATO: A Display of Unity Amid Internal Divisions

For years, NATO has portrayed itself as a defender of collective security, the international order, and international law. However, its conduct during recent crises has raised serious questions about its commitment to those very principles. If respect for national sovereignty, opposition to the use of force, and adherence to international law are truly universal principles, they should not be subject to political considerations or the interests of major powers.

Disagreements among NATO members over defense spending, the extent of the US role in European security, and how to respond to global crises indicate that the alliance's cohesion is under significant strain. Europe is no longer as confident as before that Washington will always bear the continent's security costs, while the US is pressing its European allies to assume greater financial and military responsibilities.

These disputes go beyond financial matters. They reflect deeper shifts in the global balance of power, as the US confronts multiple simultaneous challenges and Europe seeks a more independent role in shaping security affairs.

Ukraine: A War That Has Become NATO's Strategic Test

The war in Ukraine has become NATO's most significant strategic test in recent years. What was expected to reinforce the West's strategic position has instead evolved into a prolonged war of attrition, imposing heavy costs on Europe and its Western allies.

Billions of dollars in military aid, higher defense spending, and an expanded military presence in Eastern Europe have failed to resolve the conflict. Instead, the war has generated economic pressure, an energy crisis, and heightened security concerns across much of Europe.

Differences have also emerged within NATO over the future course of the conflict. Some members insist that continued military support for Ukraine is essential to maintaining deterrence, while others warn about the long-term costs and emphasize the need for a political solution.

At the same time, NATO's approach to expanding its own military capabilities while evaluating the defense capacities of other countries has drawn widespread criticism over what critics describe as double standards in Western security policy, raising further questions about the credibility of the so-called "rules-based international order."

Middle East and the Credibility of International Law

Developments in the Middle East, particularly the recent confrontation involving Iran, the US, and Israel, have posed another challenge to NATO's international image. The Islamic Republic of Iran has stated that US and Israeli attacks on Iranian territory, including strikes on nuclear facilities under International Atomic Energy Agency supervision, constitute violations of the UN Charter and international law.

From Tehran's perspective, the political support or silence of some NATO member states regarding these actions is inconsistent with the West's repeated claims of defending national sovereignty and opposing the use of force. This issue has become one of the principal criticisms directed at Western foreign policy.

Critics argue that if international law is to serve as the foundation of the global order, it must be applied regardless of political influence or a country's status. Differing responses to similar crises have reinforced the perception that legal principles are often applied selectively according to geopolitical interests.

Strait of Hormuz and the Future of Regional Security

The Strait of Hormuz has also highlighted differing perspectives between Iran and Western countries. NATO members stress the importance of maritime security and freedom of navigation, while Iran maintains that lasting security in this strategic waterway cannot be achieved without addressing the underlying sources of regional tension.

Tehran believes that security in the Persian Gulf should be based on cooperation among regional states and respect for their national sovereignty. In its view, the military presence of extra-regional powers has not guaranteed stability and has, in many cases, further complicated the regional security environment.

Ultimately, the Ankara summit projected less an image of NATO's unquestioned strength than that of an alliance confronting multiple simultaneous challenges—from the war in Ukraine and internal disagreements to crises in the Middle East and growing questions about the credibility of its legal and political approaches.

More than anything else, NATO's future will depend on its ability to narrow internal divisions, redefine its role in an increasingly multipolar world, and respond to mounting criticism of its performance. At present, NATO's greatest challenge lies not only in confronting external rivals but also in answering a fundamental internal question: Can the alliance maintain a balance between military power, political legitimacy, and genuine adherence to the principles it publicly upholds?