U.S. officials familiar with the planning said options for "reclaiming" the vital waterway include close cooperation with Panama's military and, absent that, possible war.
Article Five of the treaty states that if an armed attack occurs against one of the member states, it should be considered an attack against all members, and other members shall assist the attacked member, with armed forces if necessary.
While NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, it does not mandate a specific response, but rather each member decides what actions it deems necessary to assist the attacked member.
https://nato.usmission.gov/about-nato/
While NATO’s Article 5 states that an attack on one member is an attack on all, it does not mandate a specific response, but rather each member decides what actions it deems necessary to assist the attacked member.
Besides, Panama is not a NATO member.
That clause is null and void between member states to prevent a WW1 situation.
Also, Panama isn’t a member and would be defending, not invading.
that’s not really relevant here since panama isn’t a NATO member
That’s true. It would apply to Canada and Denmark though.