Crises are an integral part of the international system, even during the Cold War, when a peaceful world was expected. Therefore, with the occurrence of a crisis, the discussion of management, which aims to prevent its escalation or spread, becomes important, which is carried out in the form of actions by effective actors such as governments and organizations. NATO is one of the organizations that has tried to maintain its continuity and survival by defining the special task of crisis management for itself. NATO's cooperation with the Security Council, based on Chapter Eight of the Charter and its role in various crises, was in this direction, but its lack of role in the Syrian crisis raises the question of what factors affect the role of this institution in crises. In response, the hypothesis is put forward that past experiences and the policies of the great powers are effective in playing NATO's role. The research findings show that the limited achievements and high costs of previous interventions, the requirement to obtain permission from the Security Council for intervention, and the obstacles in its way caused NATO to adopt a policy of non-intervention in this crisis and not play an active role in crisis management.