One of the key global issues this week has been US President Donald Trump’s call for NATO countries to help secure the Strait of Hormuz and the reactions of world leaders. It has been reported that Paris is prepared to assist, and London is also unlikely to remain on the sidelines — while Latvia, too, must define its position. If Latvia were to receive a request from the United States within NATO to provide support, it would be “very seriously assessed,” Prime Minister Evika Siliņa (New Unity) has said. President Edgars Rinkēvičs has similarly stated that any calls to support such an operation would be evaluated. Meanwhile, Defence Minister Andris Sprūds (Progressives) has announced that Latvia currently does not plan to participate in an operation in the Strait of Hormuz. How could this affect Latvia’s relations with its strategic partner? BNN asked political scientist Filips Rajevskis, co-owner of the media company “Mediju tilts.”
“The statements by the President and the Prime Minister — that we would very seriously consider such a request — indicate that if an ally calls on us, there is a very high likelihood that we would respond. In other words: we support them, they support us,” the political scientist said.
Asked whether the statements of Latvia’s top officials signal a clear readiness to get involved if necessary, Rajevskis responded: “I understand that some in Latvia are looking at Germany, France — the major states — and how they position themselves on this issue. But even their positions are not entirely clear-cut.
The Germans have said that this is not really their war and therefore they are reluctant to get involved,
while the French are more flexible but still somewhat cautious. In Latvia’s case, it is extremely important to define our position in the context of our overall security guarantees. The United States remains our key security guarantor — our entire security architecture is primarily built around that. The real question is whether Latvia should publicly say ‘no’ before anyone has even asked us. Perhaps an opportunity has been missed either to diplomatically signal that the views and needs of our strategic partners matter to us — or simply to remain silent.”
He added that, in practical terms, Latvia’s potential involvement would be largely symbolic, as the country has limited capacity to contribute to unblocking the Strait of Hormuz.
“As a NATO member state and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council, this is more about the symbolic position we take vis-à-vis the United States.”
Rajevskis also stressed the importance of demonstrating alignment with Latvia’s strategic partner.
“It is important to show that we care about our partner’s needs and that we are on the same wavelength. At the moment, no one is asking anything from us, and we will not be the decisive factor in resolving the Hormuz situation. This is about diplomacy and political signaling — about ensuring that they know they can rely on us.”
He noted that many might question what Latvia has to do with a US–Iran conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, beyond oil prices. “The answer is simple: what does a family in, say, Tennessee — whose sons serve in the US Army and who would be expected to come to our aid if, God forbid, a conflict with Russia were to escalate — have to do with our situation? Their attitude toward such a conflict will be no different from ours toward a war in Iran. We often forget that we must constantly communicate and remain consistent in the signals we send to our strategic partner.”
Read also: BNN IN FOCUS | What rising gas and fuel prices could mean for Latvia