Iran’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei formally accused NATO of complicity in the ongoing US-Israeli military campaign against Iran on June 25, 2026. The accusation came with a demand for accountability.

The trigger was NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte’s public acknowledgment that alliance members had provided support for US military operations. That admission handed Iran a diplomatic opening, and Baqaei walked straight through it.

What Iran is actually arguing

Baqaei framed NATO’s involvement as a direct violation of international law and the UN Charter. Tehran is saying that any country that helped enable these strikes is legally on the hook for the consequences.

Those consequences are substantial. Iran reported over 3,400 deaths by late June 2026, with significant damage to both oil infrastructure and civilian sites.

The accusation landed during a NATO summit that US President Donald Trump was attending. The Strait of Hormuz sits at the center of this. US military actions have continued to target Iranian installations in and around one of the world’s most consequential waterways. Roughly 20% of global oil supply transits the strait.

Why this matters beyond the headlines

Rutte’s acknowledgment of member-state support for US operations puts European allies in an uncomfortable position: quietly backing Washington while Iranian diplomats wave the receipts in public.

Strikes continuing through July 8 and 9 against Iranian military installations signal that this is not a brief exchange. It is a sustained campaign near the Strait of Hormuz.

If Iran pursues formal complaints through the UN Security Council or the International Court of Justice, votes, vetoes, and abstentions at the Security Council reveal alliance fault lines in ways that bilateral diplomacy usually papers over.

The immediate question is whether NATO members push back against the complicity framing or stay quiet and let it stand. Silence has its own diplomatic meaning.