Iran’s foreign ministry has accused NATO and its European members of direct complicity in what it terms a US-Israeli “war of aggression,” following public remarks by the alliance’s secretary general defending recent American military strikes. Spokesman Esmaeil Baghaei stated on social media that Mark Rutte’s “repeated admissions” of European logistical support confirm the continent was not impartial in the conflict. According to Tehran, any state that made its territory, military bases, or infrastructure available for the operations cannot evade responsibility for an “unprovoked aggression” and its consequences.

Viewed from NATO headquarters in Ankara, where Rutte spoke ahead of a summit, the strikes were “absolutely necessary.” The secretary general told journalists that Iran had violated a ceasefire and pointed to attacks on commercial shipping as justification for a firm US response. Washington, for its part, signalled the diplomatic track is closed. President Donald Trump said a June memorandum of understanding with Iran is “over” and that negotiating with Tehran is a waste of time. The White House described the military action as a direct reply to Iranian moves against three vessels transiting the Strait of Hormuz.

Tehran’s statement went beyond a legal protest to a personal denunciation of Rutte. Baghaei wrote that the NATO chief’s “incessant self-praise” for serving an “illegal war of choice” does not reflect strength but rather exposes the “mindset of a sycophantic courtier” who imagines flattery can erase a king’s contempt. The Iranian spokesman added that, in Washington’s eyes, an organisation deemed ineffective cannot be made effective through bootlicking, nor can such manipulative praise restore the self-respect of the flatterer. European officials have not yet issued a coordinated reply, though the accusation places several NATO governments in a position of having to address claims of facilitating a military campaign that Tehran insists lacks any international legal basis.

The exchange marks the collapse of the short-lived June arrangement that had reopened the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly one-fifth of global oil supplies pass. That deal was intended to de-escalate a conflict that began in February, but the latest cycle of strikes and counter-accusations has returned the waterway to a state of effective closure. With the memorandum now declared void by Washington and no new diplomatic channel announced, the immediate outlook is for continued military pressure and a heightened risk of direct confrontation involving European assets that Iran considers legitimate targets under its doctrine of reciprocal responsibility.