I see Turkey has threatened to attack Israel. I don’t know how serious the threat is. Let’s suppose it is serious, deadly serious, and Israel decides to strike first. Would that trigger NATO to come to Turkey’s aid and go to war with Israel?
Israel/Turkey
- Thread starter Ponca Dan
- Start date
I don’t know, that’s why I asked. How strong is the NATO commitment to come to each others’ aid? Would the USA prioritize its deference to Israel over its NATO ally?
Good questions. You should research the answers and let us know what you find.
Would be a conundrum for sure. Several NATO members have been openly anti-Semitic.
Seems pretty dumb to be musing about an Israeli first strike when Turkey is the one threatening aggression.
Ssshhhhhhh, Dan's hunting wabbits.
Just thinking back to 1967.
1967 was obvious that the Arab countries were going to attack Israel as they put troops on the boarder loaded for offensive action. They were vulnerable to a preemptive strike, and Israel after being attacked on all sides before wasn't going to take a chance.
Turkey is not a boarder state to Israel, that being said Iraqi troops have attacked Israel as part of an Arab coalition, but as long as Egypt, Jordan and Syria stay out of the conflict Turkey would be hard pressed to attack Israel, so it's more likely that Turkey is saber rattling to appease Iran. Turkey is most likely getting help against the Kurds from Iran as an incentive to threaten Israel.
Israel will understand the difficulty is a preemptive strike against Turkey, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense until actual military movements makes if obvious that Turkey is about to attack. So, your original premise is mute. That being said NATO is a defensive alliance and one country going to war on its own doesn't trigger NATO obligations. NATO joined the US in the war on Terror after 9/11 but didn't take part in Iraq war campaigns. Israel will understand this as well and do nothing as the entire idea of a preemptive attack is not tactically sound.
Rest assured you have nothing to worry about here.
Yes, in 1967 it was obvious Israel was about to be attacked so it preemptively struck first. That is the setting of the precedent. Regardless of the difficulty involved I for one have no doubt Israel would preemptively attack Turkey if it regarded the threat to be genuine. At which point Turkey would be the aggrieved party, a NATO ally that had been struck first. Thus the question is legitimate.
Obviously I don’t know the answer. But if a gun was at my head I’d guess the USA government would betray its NATO promises in a heartbeat. In fact I’d guess the USA government would defend its Zionist overlords no matter who the “enemy” is, even if it were the rest of the world combined.
I'm sure you would meltdown over that.
O
why would you be sure? There’d be no reason to melt down. Unless I was Poland.
Poland? I'm missing the connection
Poland is also a member of NATO. From the outset of the Ukrainian proxy war we have been told once Putin conquers Ukraine he’ll attack Poland next. Which would trigger an all-out war with NATO. If the US won’t defend Turkey if it is attacked what makes Poland think it will defend them?
So you begin the thought with the answer you already had and your unwilling to look at any alternate scenarios or actions that Israel can take. Why did you ask the question to begin with?
Got you.
Not much of a quandary to me, I'll side with Israel over the Muslims, you can take the Muslims.
I began with a legitimate albeit hypothetical question. I’m more than willing to listen to your answer, I appreciate your participation. But that doesn’t make me obligated to agree with your answer (which you didn’t really answer, by the way).
So any NATO commitment is discretionary?
Turkey and Israel share no border. If Turkey crosses into Syria or Iraq, Israel would be reasonable in interpreting that as an act of aggression warranting a military response. Besides, as a moslem country, Turkey is anti-freedom and really has no business being in NATO anyway.
What would happen if your absurd hypothetical were to actually happen?
cepa.org
NATO’s Response to Aggression? Glorious Ambiguity
NATO’s “collective defense” doctrine is widely misunderstood. Article 5 is deliberately structured to avoid forcing allies into war.
Apparently if Poland falls to Russia, then Putin will be able to march across Europe uncontested, then he will jump the pond, decimate Canada, Mexico, then annihilate the United States.
You know, like he has every other time.
So my supposition is probably correct: the US (and all the other NATO nations that are vassals of the US) would not protect their NATO ally from further attack. In fact I believe the US and its vassal nations would more likely come to the defense of its Zionist masters against its supposed NATO ally. Do you agree??What would happen if your absurd hypothetical were to actually happen?
NATO’s Response to Aggression? Glorious Ambiguity
NATO’s “collective defense” doctrine is widely misunderstood. Article 5 is deliberately structured to avoid forcing allies into war.
I answered your question with actual facts. I'll leave the jumping to conclusions to you.
The only reason Putin would want to invade the EU now is he would rather fight the Europeans than the Muslims.
Israel over Turkey? Every time and twice on Sunday.
You answered my question with a factual link that requires “jumping to conclusion” in order to answer my “absurd” hypothetical question. If you want to shy away from offering an opinion why don’t you just say so?
So NATO commitments are 100% discretionary? I wonder if the vassals know that.
I wonder how quickly such a betrayal by the US would lead to an alliance by Turkey with Russia, China and Iran (even India, maybe?). As SiL puts it Turkey does not belong in NATO anyway. It was just made a member to complete a NATO military loop around Russia (purely defensive, of course). I gather the conventional thinking is Israel’s importance far outweighs a significant break in the loop.
What makes you think Turkey is not already in somewhat of an alliance with Russia? Turkey is currently the only NATO member which is not on Russia's unfriendly countries list
Actually, I did answer it. "That being said NATO is a defensive alliance and one country going to war on its own doesn't trigger NATO obligations. NATO joined the US in the war on Terror after 9/11 but didn't take part in Iraq war campaigns."
I'll be clearer. An attack by Israel should trip the alliance. However, it could also spell the end of NATO all together. I'm not sure how willing France, England, Canada and especially Germany would be to go defend Turkey from Israel. Many of the smaller nations as well would be hard pressed to want to send military aid to Turkey after provoking an attack by Israel.
Where do you come up with this nonsense? We have put carrier groups out to prevent escalation. Edogan would be dumber than a rock to attack Israel. He would risk the USoA raining down hellfire from the air on his military. Israel would not strike first as the calculus does not work. They would absorb a first strike to ensure NATO art 5 could not be used.
Israel has 5 dolphin class subs with capability to launch upwards of 80 nukes.
Any country that actually threatened their existence in that region will glow in the dark.
Samson!
b'rerat shimshon
Samson Option - Wikipedia
'Israel must be like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.' I consider it all hopeless at this point. We shall have to try to prevent things from coming to that, if at all possible. Our armed forces, however, are not the thirtieth strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under" -General Moshe Dayan
Exactly the point I made earlier: for some unknown and unexplained reason Israel is of vastly more importance than the alliance that has kept western Europe and America glued together for the last half century. I find that odd. I’d be surprised if you didn’t.
Similar threads
