Israel is itching to go to war with Turkiye and Egypt

[Oscar]

Not at all. Turkey is a NATO member and can invoke article 5 if attacked first.

Not saying it can't happen, I just think it's very doubtful.

Agree to disagree

Israel would rather have regime change in Turkey than conflict.


Article 5 has only ever been invoked once by us after 9/11 AND even then every member decides for itself what action it considers necessary; it does not automatically require all NATO states to send troops or start a war.

Turkish advantage with NATO comes more from Article 4 to get support and defensive operational support if asked. Take the Iranian BM in March 26, apparently it was NATO interceptors that took it down(I could be wrong and those could be Turkish assets) but no one even thought of article 5.

With Israel - in that odd hypothetical scenario - article 5's own text means NATO members can actively support Israel EVEN IF ISRAEL IS THE AGGRESSOR but perhaps act openly in terms of providing political support for a ceasefire.

In that case the article 5 is no more worthy than someone getting a certificate in AI from the Liberty Valley Online University which sounds great on LinkedIn but far less useful in the actual workplace.

 

[nahtanbob]

Remind me, is it not Pakistan who is acting as intermediary for negotiations between the US and Iran?

that is what errand boys do

And was it not Modi who came begging Trump to get Pakistan to stop shooting down Indian aircraft?

whatever

 

[nahtanbob]

Israel would rather have regime change in Turkey than conflict.


Article 5 has only ever been invoked once by us after 9/11 AND even then every member decides for itself what action it considers necessary; it does not automatically require all NATO states to send troops or start a war.

Turkish advantage with NATO comes more from Article 4 to get support and defensive operational support if asked. Take the Iranian BM in March 26, apparently it was NATO interceptors that took it down(I could be wrong and those could be Turkish assets) but no one even thought of article 5.

With Israel - in that odd hypothetical scenario - article 5's own text means NATO members can actively support Israel EVEN IF ISRAEL IS THE AGGRESSOR but perhaps act openly in terms of providing political support for a ceasefire.

In that case the article 5 is no more worthy than someone getting a certificate in AI from the Liberty Valley Online University which sounds great on LinkedIn but far less useful in the actual workplace.

Isn't the whole thing academic? Greenland issue aside for a moment, USA is not going to allow anyone to attack heartland of NATO member.

 

[nahtanbob]

Supa Powa 2020. Meanwhile its the "Bhikaris" next door who are mediating possibly the most consequential geopolitical negotiations of decades in the region. While they are just sitting their with the D**** in their hands, going saaar pleej don't block my Gas imports saaaar. lol

Its clear when push comes to shove, the Pakistanis punch above their weight and maneuver geopolitics with far more consequence, while this alledged "Giant" underwhelms in its "Supa Powa" status.

Not really a fan of Asim Munir or Military dictatorships but credit where credit is due, domestic matters and afghan matters may be a different thing, but on this particular matter of regional geopolitics and regional relations, he has maneuvered well.

Unless Pakistan is being paid anything more than IMF loans, there is nothing consequential here

At some point tomorrow (we are talking a decade or so) when the dust settles, Iran or Saudi Arabia will sign a strategic partnership with India and move on. you will see how consequential Pakistan was

my last word on this