The reinforcement of American forces on its territory will lead to Romania's involvement in a war with Iran, according to a false narrative spread by “sovereignist” groups in Parliament.
NEWS: "We have no guarantee that the purpose and intentions are purely defensive, we have no guarantee that anyone will defend these military bases, we do not know how many soldiers will stay, and we are in the dark about many other things [...]. Only 64 members of Parliament have consulted that classified document. We have the responsibility to ensure that no citizen is subjected to risks. Today is the European Day of Remembrance for Victims of Terrorism [...]. We value the strategic partnership with the USA, but we have the duty and responsibility to shield Romanians from war. We must not alarm citizens unnecessarily, but we have a duty to tell them the truth, and we cannot guarantee that at this moment there are no security risks for them. We wish to send a message to His Excellency, Darryl Nirenberg, the US Ambassador to Romania, quoting our national poet, Mihai Eminescu: While we are still at peace, we bid you welcome [...]” (George Simion, leader of AUR)
NARRATIVES: 1. Due to the American equipment brought to Air Base 57 at Mihail Kogălniceanu, Romania is becoming a belligerent party in the war with Iran. 2. Romania is not a safe country at the moment because of the aid it provides to the USA.
No treaty is forcing Romania to enter a war on the side of the USA
WHY THE NARRATIVES ARE FALSE: The American military equipment brought to Air Base 57 in Mihail Kogălniceanu, Constanța County, cannot launch attacks against Iran. The President insists that these are defensive assets and that Romania is a “safer” country in this context.
Admittedly, the equipment in question can contribute to the American war effort (e.g., refueling aircraft) and is brought to the Kogălniceanu air base in the context of operations in Iran, but this does not mean Romania is being drawn into the war.
Romania is not obliged to intervene in a military conflict in which the USA is a belligerent party except within the framework of NATO, according to Article 5, which stipulates that an attack against one is an attack against all – and the United States has not been attacked by Iran. Should a member state be attacked, it must request assistance, and the other members must reach a collective conclusion that the conditions for activating Article 5 are met. Washington has not even mentioned the possibility of requesting the activation of Article 5, and if it were to do so, it is hard to see how it could claim the USA was attacked, considering it triggered the war. Preemptive attacks, as the one on Iran was described by the US administration, are not covered by Article 5.
Even in a situation where Article 5 is activated, allied interventions do not necessarily mean participation in the war with troops: the aid granted to the attacked state may or may not involve the use of armed force and may include any action that the allies consider necessary to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Although NATO member states have been involved over the years in various conflicts (Korea, the Suez Crisis, Vietnam, the Falkland Islands, the Gulf War, etc.) and even if the Alliance as a whole has participated in conflicts (the 1999 war for Kosovo, the air operation in Libya, etc.), Article 5 has been activated only once in NATO history, after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, against the United States.
Regarding the Romania-USA bilateral relationship (beyond NATO), there is no treaty that automatically forces the two countries to support each other in war.
The only bilateral agreements between our country and the USA are the Strategic Partnership signed in 1997, which has a political and strategic cooperation purpose, the Defense Cooperation Agreement, signed in 2005, which allows for the stationing of American troops and the use of certain bases in Romania, as well as agreements regarding the activity of US troops on Romanian territory (involving access to military bases, military cooperation, logistics, etc.).
Therefore, these agreements facilitate military cooperation but do not imply an obligation such as “if one of the partners is attacked, the other partner automatically enters the war”.
NATO membership and the presence of American and Alliance forces enhance Romania's security, they don’t undermine it
Beyond the firm assurances given by the President of Romania regarding the fact that our country is “even safer” than before, there are several logical arguments as to why Romania is a safe country at present, in the context of the conflict with Iran:
In the first place, Romania is protected by NATO, as explained earlier, so an attack against Romania would mean an attack against NATO, which significantly discourages an aggressor state from undertaking such an action in the first place.
Secondly, Romania’s territory hosts both NATO and American troops, something which significantly increases the level of security. In Romania, there are approximately 3,500 NATO military personnel and approximately 1,000 American military personnel. Thus, an attack on Romania would also imply an attack on these military forces deployed to our country.
Last but not least, Romania hosts the anti-ballistic defense shield at Deveselu, one of the most important elements of the NATO air defense system, which intercepts ballistic missiles launched toward Europe.
Furthermore, Romania is one of the most important defense pillars on NATO's Eastern Flank, also ensuring the defense of the Black Sea region, a fact noted and emphasized by Western and UE leaders in official speeches and visits.
The fact that Romania plays an important role in the defense architecture of the USA and NATO is transparent in the very expansion of the air base at Mihail Kogălniceanu, where a future “American town” is being developed, an investment of 2.5 billion Euro.
BACKGROUND: The narrative regarding the fact that Romania ”is being dragged into war” by the West is not new, and Veridica debunked as early as the end of 2024 the fake news claiming the EU “was
preparing Romania and Moldova for war”.
The narrative regarding Romania entering a war with Iran because of the USA and Israel appears in an extremely tense international context, in which Russia's voices in the country have frantically fanned the idea of Romania entering the war against Iran. Shortly after the war broke out, another self-styled sovereignist politician, AUR MEP Gheorghe Piperea, promoted the false narrative according to which Romania is forced by the UE treaty to enter the war.
George Simion’s official statement on Wednesday in Parliament's coincided with a ”protest” staged by a group of extremist parliamentarians, including Tudor Ionescu from The New Right, and several SOS MPs, who used vuvuzelas, shouts and whistles to demand” peace, not war,” a fact which led to the suspension of debates in Parliament.
The narrative was also picked up in political statements by parliamentarians, an SOS deputy speaking about ”the last night of love, the first night of war”, but also by the leader of SOS, Diana Șoșoacă, who appeared on OTV, Russia Today, TikTok and Facebook, conveying alarmist and viral messages about Romania allegedly being ”at the center of the third world war”, debunked by Veridica, and saying ”we have entered a war with Iran”.
Direct attacks on other states, a risk for Iran
Since the start of the war, Iran has launched hundreds of missiles and drones targeting states in the region hosting American bases, including two attacks on Turkey, a NATO state. Tehran's forces have also targeted a base in Cyprus held by Great Britain and a base in the United Arab Emirates where a French contingent is located. None of the three NATO countries (Turkey, Great Britain and France) treated the respective incidents as attacks that would warrant involvement in the war or the activation of Article 5. Not even the Gulf states, where the strikes hit elements related to tourism and transport infrastructure, as well as civilian and energy targets, considered them reason enough to justify their involvement in the war.
For its part, Tehran insists that it is not targeting any of these states, especially since it is also a matter of pragmatism – Iran cannot afford to go to war with the whole world. A direct attack on Romania could put Iran in a direct confrontation with the whole of NATO. That being said, it is possible, however, that Iran might consider American objectives on Romanian territory as legitimate targets and thus flag them for possible missile strikes or terrorist attacks – that is, obviously, if it still has the capacity to plan and carry them out, an otherwise unlikely scenario.
