Throughout the Ramadan War, NATO members, particularly European governments, sought to distance themselves from any involvement in the US and Zionist regime's military aggression against the Islamic Republic of Iran. However, remarks by NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte regarding the role and support of alliance members during the war once again brought the conflict's hidden and less-discussed dimensions into public view. Although, following the publication of those remarks, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani, in a phone call with Abbas Araghchi, categorically denied that Italian military bases had been used to launch attacks against Iran and stressed that Italy had authorized no such operation, the very fact that such claims were made by NATO's highest-ranking official raises important questions about the extent and nature of alliance members' cooperation during the Ramadan War.
What has become more important than ever is uncovering the truth and ensuring accountability regarding the actual role of foreign actors in a war that many international observers have described as incompatible with the fundamental principles of international law and the UN Charter.
Collapse of ‘Global Policeman’ Narrative
Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, NATO has portrayed itself as the guarantor of global security and international stability. Relying on that narrative, the alliance has justified its military and political presence in various regions and sought to present its interventions as legitimate.
However, the experiences of Bosnia, Afghanistan, Libya, and now the Ramadan War have presented a different picture to global public opinion. Critics argue that, in many cases, NATO has acted not as a guardian of peace but as an instrument for advancing the geopolitical objectives of Western powers. From this perspective, any direct or indirect participation by NATO members in the aggression against Iran is not merely a political issue but one with potentially far-reaching legal and international implications.
The Ramadan War is particularly significant because much of global public opinion has viewed it as an illegitimate act that violated established principles of international law. Under such circumstances, any cooperation in facilitating or supporting the war, if proven, cannot be exempt from legal and moral responsibility.
Questions That Demand Clarification
The NATO secretary general's remarks about the US utilizing the capabilities of certain alliance members, including Italy and Romania, have raised significant questions about the true extent of Western military cooperation during the Ramadan War. Although the Italian government rejected these claims and insisted that its bases were not used in operations against Iran, the contradictions between statements by different Western officials indicate that considerable ambiguity still surrounds the details of this case.
In this context, Kazem Gharibabadi, Deputy Foreign Minister of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has pointed out that, under UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, making the territory of one state available for use by another state in carrying out aggression against a third country may constitute participation in an act of aggression. Clarifying the true dimensions of this issue is therefore not merely a political demand but a legal and international necessity.
High Cost of Trusting Washington
Even if some European governments believed that aligning with US policies would secure strategic benefits or special advantages, past experience and recent developments have once again demonstrated that Washington ultimately acts according to its own interests and feels little obligation toward its European partners.
In recent years, European allies have repeatedly borne the political, security, and economic costs of Washington's decisions without receiving commensurate benefits. The Ramadan War has been no exception. Even as some European governments attempted to portray their alignment with the US as a sign of strategic loyalty, the White House's unilateral and dismissive approach once again demonstrated that, in America's power calculations, allies matter only as long as they serve Washington's objectives.
A Confession That Shattered the Myth of Unilateral US Power
One of the most significant aspects of Rutte's remarks is their impact on the official US narrative of the Ramadan War. Throughout the conflict, Donald Trump sought to project the image that the United States was capable of managing the battlefield alone, without relying on any external support, and that the US military needed no assistance to achieve its objectives.
However, regardless of their precise scope or details, the NATO secretary general's remarks highlighted the reality that US military operations around the world depend on an extensive network of coalition cooperation, infrastructure, and shared capabilities. From this perspective, the Ramadan War was not merely a confrontation between Iran and the US and the Zionist regime, but one involving the broader military, intelligence, and logistical capabilities of the Western bloc.
This reality has further underscored the scale of Iran's resistance and resilience in the eyes of many observers and demonstrated that the balance of power in today's world is no longer defined solely by conventional military superiority.
A Legitimacy Reaffirmed
Developments following the Ramadan War have once again reinforced the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran's position regarding the role of foreign powers in the region. The contradictions, ambiguities, and conflicting narratives put forward by Western officials about the war demonstrate that many of the actors presenting themselves as impartial arbiters and mediators were, in practice, part of the crisis itself.
Under these circumstances, Iran considers it its right to pursue, through legal, political, and international channels, the role of any state involved in acts of aggression against the country's security and territorial integrity. The Ramadan War also once again highlighted the importance of the prudent and responsible management of the region's strategic assets, including vital maritime routes and energy corridors—assets whose security and stability require an end to the interventionist and adventurist policies of extra-regional powers.
The Ramadan War may have ended, but questions about NATO's actual role and that of certain Western actors remain unanswered. Clear answers to those questions are essential not only for Iran, but also for the credibility of the international order and the West's claims of upholding the rule of law and accountability.