
NATO Chief Defends US Strikes on Iran as ‘Absolutely Necessary’ Amid Retaliation
Mark Rutte’s endorsement came as Iran struck US bases in Bahrain and Kuwait, deepening the crisis over a June ceasefire and pushing oil prices higher.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte on Wednesday described the latest US military strikes on Iran as “absolutely necessary”, citing what he called Iranian violations of a ceasefire agreement. The remarks came as the US Central Command confirmed a new wave of attacks on more than 80 targets in Iran, including air defence systems and vessels of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, following projectile strikes on three commercial tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. In retaliation, Iran’s IRGC said it launched missiles and drones at 85 US military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, triggering air raid sirens and air defence responses in both Gulf states.
From Washington, the strikes were framed as a response to “unwarranted, dangerous” attacks on shipping that violated the June memorandum of understanding. US officials also revoked a temporary licence that had allowed Iranian oil sales, a move Tehran condemned as a breach of the framework agreement. Iranian negotiators and military commanders denied responsibility for the tanker incidents and accused the United States of repeatedly violating the ceasefire, including through continued military operations and sanctions. Qatar publicly blamed Iran for a drone strike on its LNG tanker, while Saudi Arabia reported damage to a crude carrier off Oman. Gulf states condemned the attacks on commercial vessels as threats to energy supplies and regional stability.
The exchange of fire has placed the ceasefire—brokered after months of conflict that disrupted oil markets and shipping—under heavy strain. Oil prices rose more than 3 per cent, and Vietnam signalled it may increase coal-fired power generation due to concerns over liquefied natural gas supply security. European diplomats in Ankara, where NATO leaders gathered for a summit, discussed with Gulf Arab states a possible multinational maritime protection mission for the Strait of Hormuz, though officials cautioned that such a plan remains largely political without consent from the parties to the conflict.
The escalation unfolded against the backdrop of a NATO summit at which European leaders sought to persuade US President Donald Trump to reaffirm his commitment to the alliance. Trump has repeatedly criticised European allies for what he describes as insufficient burden-sharing in the war against Iran and has not ruled out further troop withdrawals. Rutte countered that 5,000 US aircraft had operated from European bases during the campaign and insisted there was “no doubt” about Washington’s full commitment to NATO. He also pressed European and Canadian governments to match US defence spending levels, framing increased allied budgets as a “win” for Trump and a “loss” for the Kremlin.
The NATO summit was expected to reaffirm that Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons capability, according to alliance officials. Meanwhile, the US-Iran memorandum of understanding, which had initiated 60 days of negotiations toward a final resolution, now faces an uncertain future. With both sides accusing each other of violations and military operations continuing, diplomats from regional powers are attempting to mediate and prevent a wider conflagration. No new talks have been announced, and the conflict’s trajectory hinges on whether the ceasefire can be salvaged or the cycle of strikes deepens.
| Iranian & allied press | −0.70 | critical |
|---|---|---|
| Atlantic / Anglosphere press | +0.50 | aligned |
| Continental European press | 0.00 | neutral |
Iran denounces NATO's hypocrisy and asserts its right to respond to American aggression.
The Iranian narrative reverses the accusation: it is not Iran violating the ceasefire but the US, and NATO legitimizes an aggression. This rhetorical reversal serves to delegitimize the Western position and mobilize domestic support.
It omits the context of Iranian attacks on commercial shipping that triggered the US response.
NATO and the United States act to defend freedom of navigation and enforce the ceasefire.
The Atlantic narrative normalizes military action by presenting it as an automatic and necessary response to a violation, without examining root causes or diplomatic alternatives. The use of 'absolutely necessary' removes any ambiguity.
It omits the Iranian perspective that the US violated the ceasefire first, and does not mention the scale of the attacks (over 80 targets) nor the risks of escalation.
Continental Europe observes with concern the division between those who support military action and those who fear uncontrolled escalation.
The continental European narrative adopts a 'critical spectator' perspective, presenting both justifications and criticisms without taking a clear stance. This creates a balancing effect that suggests caution.
It omits the specific details of the Iranian attacks on ships that triggered the US response, and does not mention the Iranian retaliation claims.
Broaden your view
New York Mayor Reviews Legal Basis to Arrest Netanyahu During UN Visit
12 languages · 39 outlets
From Economy & MarketsUS confirms 25% tariff on Brazilian imports, exempting key commodities, as political blame game intensifies
2 languages · 14 outlets
From TechnologyIndia’s private sector reaches orbit on first attempt with Vikram-1 rocket
6 languages · 8 outlets