Of all the participants in NATO, the US is pretty much the only one that is meeting the challenge of the Islamic conquest of the world. THAT is the enemy to be addressed or Europe must prepare to be under the musloid thumb. Iran and the conflict under way there, at this time, is a very large part of that challenge that must be won.
Like alcoholics and junkies, Europe doesn't even seem to think they have a problem.
I think too many people are taking the mainstream media’s words for this being an “unpopular war”… Everyone I know is 100% for this!
What I do see the mainstream media doing is staying in their echo chamber, asking the purple haired, nose-ring people what they think. They already have TDS, so what do you think they are going to say?!
I do have a question for y’all across the pond… Do most people in Europe really WANT to be under sharia law? 🤔😬 You do know that if this continues, you ALL will be under sharia law, whether you want it or not! You ladies better get used to wearing a burka and hijab. The ladies in Iran, prior to this devilish Muslim administration that took over, were normally dressed as well. It’s so sad… 😞
I am also confident in saying that most people here in the United States of America want NO PART of the heavy “musloid thumb.” Pushback in a lot of places has begun… We want to keep our dogs… 🐶 Our arms… 🔫 Our bacon, 🥓 and our freedom!
Europe has sent so much money and armaments to Ukraine, an ostensible dictatorship, given the ‘delay’ of elections, yet decries the war against a dictatorship that has sponsored terrorism across Europe and is killing its own civilians? There’s more to this than political posturing.
NATO was an unlimited alliance to protect its members from any source of attack. By extension also any foreseeable threat.
Iran’s work on nukes, its extensive ballistic and other missiles development and concealed stocks and its support for proxies around the world easily exceeded the threshold of foreseeable threat.
As far as the UK is concerned our national interests and those of the US are usually very close on most issues. We should maintain an alliance by finding our forces accordingly.
Our interests are not so deeply aligned with continental Europe so an alliance with those states would not be so valuable to us unless part of an alliance with the US.
European countries should beware. If they break the NATO alliance we will see they are all swimming naked. Also, a US, UK and others alliance would be bound to operate at a security level in any non-member state. With the US State Department and CIA no longer funding EU integration the fall out for badly behaving politicians could be serious.
If European members of NATO will not see the necessity to eliminate existential threats by oil and gas restrictions and nuclear missiles then we have no use for them. If they refuse allies the use of assets be ally funds and needs then bases are of little value.
As far as I can see the right policy for the UK is:
1 spend double on defence
2 retain and protect our obverse as territories especially Gibraltar, Chagos and Falklands
3 provide defence support to long term (sometimes former) allies such as Gulf States and some in Africa
4 Mount intelligence operations in all other places to disrupt possible threats and opposition to our interests.
Naturally I want a full Brexit. Full control of our borders. Removal of illegals, criminals and those who will not support our culture and democracy. Cancellation of Net Zero and reinstatement of our manufacturing capacity.
NATO didn't specify threats. Any threat was a threat. It appears the Europeans can't recognize threats when they roll up in a panzer division or a call to prayer.
Opposing totalitarianism most definitely was the NATO mandate, and still is per the US. Defense of liberty-focused Western civilization (which is not tolerated by Islamists) was the absolute core, which appears to have been abandoned by the EU central authorities and a plurality of the EU/NATO governments.
It is tautologically obvious that it is not in the US interest to support (much less subsidize the defense of) governments that oppose our interests.
Is the Islamic conquest of the world in the room with us?
What I see is Bibi driving the israelis to paranoia with his fear mongering to stay in power and Trump being his willing lapdog and starting a war without thinking about long term consequences.
And lets not forget which country was the biggest promoter of diversity and mass migration until yesterday to the extent that white children are now a minority.
Or which countries perpetual Middle Eastern wars are driving millions of refugees to Europe.
It's actually part of the islamic doctrine and enough muslim clerics, leaders and fellow cultists have admitted to this. So why not take them at their word?
And the US is buddies with the fundamentalist muslim Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf rulers who promote this doctrine all over the globe. The US & friends also supported militarily radical islamists in Syria and Libya against their far more secular governments.
The US establishment actually really likes islamists since the 80's so I'm not buying that they are bombing Iran because they are islamists.
Unfortunately, that's true, but it doesn't negate my statement on the doctrine of Islam. And let's not pretend that these countries have ever been stable. But it seems they are better suited to be dictatorships to keep a handle on the extremists.
That they are Islamists is not even the official rationale. Iran is being singled out (officially) because of their nuclear weapons development program, their threats to destroy Israel, and their past behavior in supporting terrorist groups. But these are also things that the US has tolerated for years, if not decades. I'd speculate that the real reason is geopolitical--an effort to keep China from gaining a foothold in the world's biggest oil producing region.
Another reason may be political -- Trump placating the neocons and neolibs in the War Party, and Israel's powerful congressional lobbies, in order to gain traction for his domestic agenda, including passing the SAVE Act before the midterms, and funding ICE in order to continue the deportation effort.
Iran is not generically "Muslim" but Shia. Huge difference!
Unlike the Saudis and the Sunni-ruled Gulf states, Iran has NOT made serious efforts to spread Islam to non-Islamic countries or regions.
The West has been subjected to decades of forced immigration low-quality Muslim (Sunni) migrants. This was quite intentionally EXACERBATED by failure to police and manage the hordes while allowing them to suck of the public teat.
Muslim abuses were well documented in the media throughout most of this period. As a result, Shia Iran is now tarred with the same brush as its unprincipled Sunni enemies.
The flooding of social systems (aka "Cloward-Piven Strategy¨) is design to accelerate the decline and failure of Western societies preparatory to plundering and enslaving them for the benefit of global oligarchs.
Exactly, and unfortunately, not enough people realize this. Rather, they parrot the propaganda that Islam is "mostly peaceful". At Islam's very core, it is not peaceful. It states clearly what they are compelled to do by Allah, which is to convert the world to Islam, and to kill those who refuse to convert. There are many videos online featuring Muslim clerics saying exactly that, and they are saying it from the U.K., France, and any number of European countries. One example: "We are not here to assimilate. We are here to take over." These people are not hiding what they want, plan and are ordered by their religion to do. The problem is the Westerners don't want to hear it.
Islam specifically states purposely migrating for purposes of creating new Muslim territory (“Hijra”), is Jihad second only to going to war on the infidels/nonbelievers. The invasions of Europe and the US are intended for conquest. So, yes, it is in the room for those of who have educated ourselves about the reality of Islam.
As for Trump being an Israeli lapdog, that’s foolishness. Trump has focused on Iran since, I believe, the late 90s. Any assertion there is no plan is absurd. How can anyone think the US military has not planned and continued to plan since the Carter Hostage Crisis.
And thinking Israelis understand that a level of paranoia is justified when their neighbors murder and rape them while laughing and 90% of Gazans celebrated. Pretty sure that is not really paranoia, but realistic fear that should and was reacted to appropriately.
The musloid thump seems to be doing pretty well in the US. At least In my neck of the woods. Buying up property like crazy, Halal restaurants everywhere, mosques being built everywhere. Just Google " nearby mosque or masjid in my area " you'll be shocked! I'd like to know where all the money is coming from.
Sheesh man. That's some primitive behavior. Just cause you dislike someone is no reason to pick a fight and all this blather about the Islamist conquest...well, what is there to say except "dispell."
Now, I'm no fan of uncontrolled immigration, but that threat comes more from EU "leaders" than from Muslims who want nothing to do with whitey even though they find themselves paid to be the EU underclass. Sort your glasses dude!
Dismiss Islamic conquest at your own peril. Suggest reading up a bit on previous Islamic conquests....extending into the Iberian peninsula as one example.
Well, possibly, if the Iran war is as successful as we hope (some possibility, I think), then a lot of emigration from Muslim lands will go down. I hope a lot. And Iran will need to be rebuilt. Plenty of jobs for lots of people.
Then, will the West force the re-migration of the Muslim horde that has come upon them. Or suicidal empathy.
Damn! Western Civilization deserves better than what European leaders are doing so far.
SSholes like you, Trumplestiltskin and Satanyahu (mileikovsky) are the real enemy. And all the dooshbags who upvoted you. Be certain that ten times more would downvote if they could.
I don’t want to be involved in any Spat, but I must share my common sense about the situation:
1) Telling someone in a relationship you won’t do them a favor calls for an explanation and apology. Maybe those were given but I haven heard of that level of politeness. 2)This military action began because IRan refused further negotiations after three weeks. Only other move on the chessboard was a strike on the USA. Further, the Trump administration determined that Iran had begun enrichment of uranium right after the 12 hour Midnight Hammer. They were at 60% and would have had the capability of destroying us, and that means you. Our President is taking this action for the world, especially for the next generation.
Con’t- I understand the US spends a fortune for our bases on your land. Do you really want them off the Continent? We lose when we cannot refuel in a military operation. You lose when…well, we don’t know. This is a long relationship, and we should stick with it.
I enjoy my free and accessible healthcare (I can walk to) my natural, affordable vegetables, meats and fish (I can walk to), my own fruit trees, professional civil servants as police, neighbors bringing all sorts of gifts ... Oh, you can read my next book to see what it's like in a traditional village here!
I love when someone say “free and accessible health care”. As if it just grows on trees and you just pick it. I hate to break it to you, but there’s no “free” health care. You or someone else is paying for it, one way or another.
The other thing she neglects to mention is the 18 month wait for a simple surgery. Or the quality of outcomes which aren't. But 'free' really carries weight in Europe. They don't get that when the government feeds, houses, taxes and provides medical care and education, you are basically a government slave. In the UK you have to support that dreadful royal globalists family too. 🤢 It's a cultural difference between us and them you can't get past. 'Free' for them is the most important. 'Freedom' for us is more important. Although that's slipping here too.
Indeed. The Germans just realised that their socialised healthcare have a huge black hole that needs to be filled. A €30 billion hole that needs to be filled with higher contributions or cutting of benefits.
I’m 70 years old, owned and operated my own businesses, raised a family, have lived on three continents, worked my way through two college degrees; first in my family to earn one. I know who pays for everything, George.
I think we are living under global fascism. I think the Iran War is probably mostly fake (read Mike Huggins) and part of the Great (sic) Reset. A global digital currency and ID - poverty, serfdom for us, and more for the Palantirs and Epstein-ites are the goal. We need to stand together as non-trans-humans and fight like Hell.
If you think the Iran war is mostly fake, you should perhaps speak to a few Iranians about that. Or maybe a few million of them who had to flee Iran over the years.
Where is this free and accessible healhcare you're talking about? How fast can you get an appointment to see your house doctor or specialist? You mention you can walk everywhere. If you need to go to the city, are the reliable public transport? Are you discouraged to have a car?
> It is the province of internet crazies like me to call for the phase-out of NATO. The Americans are not going to do it and the Europeans aren’t either.
Sadly true. I'm also an internet crazy who has been advocating for such a thing since the mid 90's. Oooooh, probably a full thirty years, at this point! Damn, I'm getting *old*.
Not crazy, rational. Maybe not phase-out, but reconfigure, re-focus, and re-think NATO, the EU, and Russia. Why are Spain and France part of NATO?
When the USSR collapsed and wanted to westernize, the EU and the US got very aggressive with NATO, and went into Russia like carpetbaggers. If we hadn’t done that, perhaps the world would be a better place.
Russia isn't the Red Army of the USSR, and the only military threat to Europe as a whole is (drum roll) the USA, in theory at least.
No other power has the capacity but the USA to win a war against a European military alliance, in Europe - and no power at all has the might to take the war to the USA's mainland.
The only thing NATO is protecting is the profits of the mil-int complex and the bankers.
The Europeans tend to be quite Russophobic, which is understandable based on history, but seems unwarranted. The Russians have neither the means nor the intention of taking on Western Europe militarily. If indeed Russia is not a threat, then NATO makes no sense and the US should have withdrawn long ago. Russophobia has been ginned up in the US by grifting neocons working for and funded by munitions contractors, and led to the most unwise expansion of NATO right up to and unofficially in Ukraine. Imagine what the US would do if similarly confronted from Mexico or Canada. I see President Trump's use of the current situation to undermine US support for continuation of NATO as positive.
NATO should have disbanded in 1991. Maybe by foolishly opening a second front in the US-Russia proxy war, Trump will finally be forced to agree a new security architecture. In which case the NATO-bashing might be a preparatory signal?
1951 Ten-Year Goal: Shortly after taking command, Eisenhower expressed that if U.S. troops weren't returned within 10 years, the mission would be a failure.
Temporary Nature: He viewed NATO as a temporary, "stop-gap" measure to allow Western Europe time to rebuild its defense capabilities.
"Weaning" Europe: By the late 1950s, he grew frustrated that European allies weren't taking on enough of their own defense burdens.
Burden Sharing: In 1953, he warned that the "American well can run dry," emphasizing that European nations needed to take over to prevent an indefinite U.S. troop presence.
The Europeans have repeatedly invaded Russia and suffered greatly as they've repeatedly lost. They need to look in the mirror and pay for their own defense.
Churchill called WW2 'the unneccessary war' because it should never have happened. Britain and France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he marched into the Rhineland. It's well known that he knew he was taking a chance and was amazed Britain and France did nothing. Weakness emboldens dictators. Three years later was too late.
The only use of NATO for the US is bases and air rights. Deny them and we have no reason to support NATO. Trump is replacing the UN with his Board of Peace. Next he should replace NATO.
Europe continues to show its weakness. In the UK , if Thatcher was still here do you think we'd have bloody charity enabled illegal immigrants coming across the channel in dinghies-I don't think so. So if we can't protect our own people at home what chance have we of showing anything other than abject cowardice abroad. I'm ashamed to be British. We're getting what we deserve from Trump and the USA.
And will again. As the people rise up and throw off the stupid leftists, and their ideas. Hmm. Not sure you have a Churchill as a prospective leader, yet. Eh?
My brother divorced, working shit jobs, moved in with us while we were dealing with a new infant. My wife was not happy about it. He was there for a year, before I had found him a better job and kicked him out while helping him get into an apartment. That job led him to a career in tech where his life improved.
However, today he denies he got help from me (my wife is livid about it, but I don't care), and also still has a chip on his shoulder that me and his other brother are much more financially successful. He is a Marxist and believes we should be taxed more, and he should get more government benefits... and he should also be recognized as an accomplished and high-status person because he deserves it.
He is 2 years younger than me and has been retired for five years after being fired from his job as a network tech, and I am still working.
My little brother is like old Europe. Helped by the US to prop him up to a good life but unwilling to admit it and unwilling to take responsibility for his own situation. He is retired early after never working as hard and never making equivalent good life choices.
Old Europe is like my little brother... except now it is more like my little sister after having gone through gender transition surgery and feminization programming.
Did you also firebomb your brother within an inch of his life, before brainwashing him and using him as a mercenary for 50 years to hold back your enemies?
You make zero sense. Old Europe caused both world wars and is working on a third with Russia and Ukraine. The US was isolationist and reluctant to join WWI and again with WWII. Only when the threats grew to involve the US did we get involved. Then we passed the Bretton Woods Act to try and prevent old Europe from doing it again. It worked, but it came at a great cost to the US, and it corrupted old Europe to think it was more self-sufficient than it was. The US is pulling back... kicking old Europe out of the house and making them care for themselves... and like my brother they are stupidly blaming the US for their misery... both denying that the US was caring for them and refusing to take responsibility for their own defense and economic vitality.
I agree, Germany and Britan were both worn out and might well have ended up with a stalemate in France like there is in Korea.
On top of that in WW2 130 some million US citizens went ahead to out produce the rest of the world in just 3 1/2 years. I lived in DC and started school in January 1944 and while there was some rationing and we have a victory garden in school and gave a dime a week for War Bonds my childhood did not seem deprived in any way.
Good analysis. It sounds like the kind of political spat where there's a lot of posturing and everyone wins. The U.S. War Department will be inconvenienced, but does it really need the NATO bases in question in order to supply its warships and forward bases? Trump scores points for talking tough. The European leaders score points for talking tough. And . . . let's face it, NATO has been unnecessary ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist.
True, but that seems to contradict your original observation.
At any rate, not if their use can be denied on a country by country basis. A base you can’t depend on using is nothing more than a potential convenience. You can’t base your plans on it. So you might as well not have them.
If I were Trump, Britain, Spain & France could anticipate serious pain.
Not when the US is denied use of them exactly when fighting a military engagement thousands of miles from the US. Which is, I believe, Rubio's exact point.
I listened to a speech by Russian Def. Minister Sergei Lavrov recently. He was quite explicit about his hatred for the Europeans, and rightly pointed out that Europe has been at war constantly for the last 1500 years. The Europeans tried to invade Russia twice. They have never really let Russia alone. Lavrov blamed the Europeans for dragging the Americans into their squabbles (which is actually true).
But now the problem in the United States is that vicious little nest of Neocons and Zionists who are lusting for war all over the Middle East (and beyond). Coming out on top after WWII gave us a big ego and a lot of hubris. We slowly became an empire, and empires have a way of collapsing. I suspect this is coming soon.
No. U.S. and Israel are reducing the Iranian terror threat before Iran acquires more and better missiles, defense systems, and nuclear bombs. This type of action would be much more difficult after Iran had those things.
I understand where you get those ideas, & I realize that many people have them.
But I differ. The "Iranian terror threat" consists of Iran's support for violent resistance to the Zionist population replacement program. I cannot claim that the whole region would calm down if the Israeli state were to change policy and have a multi-ethnic society, but honestly I opine that the situation is hopeless, & that gets into matters too complicated for a comment.
Regarding the direct threat from the Iranian state: Netanyahu and Trump opined that the Iranian state was defenseless, not a threat, when they started what they told us would be a blitz.
Yes, I did hear Marco Rubio say that a reason for starting war on 28 February was that eventually the Iranian state would eventually build up enough conventional military force to "make this impossible", meaning deter a war of aggression. I understand people could be impressed with that argument, but several other states also have enough military strength by themselves to deter aggression.
Also, we were told last June (by both the Israeli and US governments) that Iran would never have a nuke, and that the issue was settled for the forseeable future. If we cannot believe the previous announcements of victory, we cannot believe the excuses we're getting now.
As the Iranian UN ambassador pointed out, Iran, a non-nuclear nation, which signed the NPT and allowed international inspections, was attacked by two nuclear nations. If anything could convince the Iranians to now develop a nuclear weapon, this war is it. If you have a nuclear weapon, the US will leave you alone.
No. Iran has no reason to enrich uranium beyond 5% except for military purposes. As of early 2026, the IAEA reported that Iran had accumulated approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity. Steve Witkoff said, "They told us directly they had enough enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs, and they were proud of it."
In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. The 60% enriched uranium is either now buried beneath the rubble, or Iran had previously stored it in another location.
Iran could enrich 60% uranium to 90% in a matter of weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that intelligence shared with the U.S. showed Iran was working on a secret plan to "weaponize" uranium, moving beyond just enrichment.
I don't believe that Iranian officials told Steve Witkoff that Iran could produce and deliver 11 nuclear bombs. Also, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not a reliable source, partly because he's been trying to persuade us to be terrified of an Iranian nuclear bomb for a long enough time that the Iranian state would have one if it had the technical capacity. I've looked for documentation to support the assertion that 60% enriched uranium can be upgraded to 90% in two weeks, but have not found it.
I did find support for your assertion that 5% is enough for generating electricity. This article might be more technical and beside-the-point than you want, but its the best I could do before running out of time. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/uranium-enrichment-explained
For an excellent discussion of this topic, I recommend "A Republic, not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny" by Patrick J. Buchanan. Written in 1999, it has aged well.
That's misreading the situation. The globalist empire already collapsed. Covidian overreach took them over the cliff. This action is mopping up.
80+% of regular American citizens are sick of Iran's troublemaking all around the globe. It's all going to end; Spain and Italy can take up the mantle of hating America if it suits them -- we won't care. We won't have to care. De-industrialization and/or abandonment of the strengths of Western culture have most of the Old World on its deathbed. Those around it are mouthing platitudes that he'll be back up-and-about Real Soon Now, but in the kitchen they're preparing the funeral meats.
Assuming that the Iranian government is 7th Century batshit-crazy (and I assume they are), this really is not a war of choice. It's to take out the No. 1 state sponsor of international terror, a government on the verge of assembling nuclear missiles. All of Christian Europe should be on board with this. Oh. My bad. They aren't Christian anymore.
You'd think that the missile IRAN popped off to Diego Garcia - which in effect could have reached a number of European capitals - would have been a wake-up call for the Europeans. Their denial feels very much like 1910-1914 when they were living in la-la-land.
A South African nuclear scientist who has visited the Iranian nuclear facilities, has made several posts stating that the Iranian nuclear program - official and registered with the IAEA - is for medical purposes and that there is no intention or sign that a weapon might be built. Iran hasn't been in a war in another country in almost 150 years and that was not started by Iran. I am much more concerned about the Middle East's proven warmonger - Israel - that does have nuclear weapons derived from an unregistered nuclear program.
Yikes. One of us has an appreciation of the facts far different from the other one. All of those spinning centrifuges, pushing their U235 concentrations to weapons-grade. Just for "medical purposes", I am sure. Yes, Israel has nukes, and so do we (US), and neither concerns me at all. The bomb that incinerates Tel Aviv, or Des Moines, won't be coming from either. It will come from a country which chants "Death to America" with great frequency. But maybe they don't mean it. Maybe they're just LARPing.
Your comment contains the assumption that an outsider, a South African nuclear scientist, in the course of his visit was told and saw all the nuclear facilities in Iran and the Iranians showed him everything they had, and furthermore, that the Iranians wouldn't lie to him or anything like that. I suppose all those thousands of missiles and drones and massive war equipment were also just for medical purposes?
The No. 1 state sponsor of terror is either the US or Israel.
If Iran does build nuclear weapons, in your opinion, which European country will it nuke first, when, and why? If you can't give a coherent response to this question, you should stop worrying about Iran.
The European country called Israel. But I can also see a nuke going off in a shipping container somewhere in a Kansas City railyard. Europe is being conquered by Islamic immigration and reproduction. No nukes required.
There's no country in Europe called ‘Israel’. There's one in Asia, populated mostly by brown non-European Christian-hating goblins.
So, all of Christian Europe should be on board with this losing war of aggression because a Jewish (not Christian, Jewish) state might get nuked? I don't follow the logic.
I concede your point. And withdraw my description of Israel as "Europe." Is Europe European anymore? I suppose it still is, but demographics are eating away at them.
The West hasn't been Christian for a very long time. Their god is mammon and they are mostly shallow materialists who lust for blood and death and destruction and self gain. Many don't consider the Beatitudes as a goal.
In the USA, Christians think God is a vending machine...He's up there to serve them while they all wait for Jesus in their bunkers with their guns and ammo. That, is batshit crazy.
Having both guns and ammo (and, importantly, water and MREs), I resemble that remark! (I am working on the bunker.) Returning to the question at hand, the West won't be defended by beatitudes, but, if at all, by bright steel. I for one am not waiting for Jesus to do it for me.
I dont know because one minute it was there and getting a lot of likes (Maybe that crazed trope of hating only one religion and blaming them for everything). I’m a long time follower and I don’t ever remember an UncleWiggly posting, so I’m guessing a troll.
Stopped reading at 'deeply unpopular Iran war'. It's not 'deeply unpopular' with the millions of people suffering and tortured inside Iran. You've fallen for the MSM/Islam's, 'keep pretending Iran isn't a problem, keep throwing money at them' plan. How out of touch can you be?
I am talking about Europe, where it is unpopular. This is an entirely neutral piece as far as the war goes. I know emotions run high on this topic but I think it’s reasonable to ask that I be held accountable for things I actually say and not things you might imagine I’m saying.
I'd be curious to know how extensively European press is reporting on the war. And also, do a lot of Europeans still read the traditional press or do they get a lot of their information online now?
American actions against Iran aren’t popular with some European politicians because they’re terrified of their extremist voters. But amongst Europeans who understand the evils of the regime and the direction their missile programs were heading, Trump is RIGHTLY a massive hero.
FALSE - Trump's base is more than supportive albeit apprehensive. Polls at the recent CPAC conference were in the range of 85 to 95% on board with the Trump program.
Depends a LOT on the question asked whether Rs support the war. And it looks like you are quoting the support on day 1 not support now. As of now even Rs want the war to end.
The US/Israel attack on Iran is deeply unpopular across the world, across the West, across Europe (what Eugy is talking about), in the US, and even unpopular in Israel and within the MAGA base. But you have access to some secret polling data from inside Iran [do] you?
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a mirage. It doesn't exist. There is no treaty because no country in Western Europe abides by its terms. This refusal to abide by the terms renders the Treaty moot and inoperative. The governments of Western Europe do not pay the amounts they agreed to pay, no where near it. The country of Western Europe do not provide the troops they agreed to provide, no where near it.
The treaty, in a word, is a joke. We may call it NATO but, in fact, NATO is merely a false name tag that has been placed on something else entirely. That something else is the military machine of the United States and the American taxpayers who foot the bill. So, let's stop pretending that there is such a thing as real NATO. There is not. It is a mirage.
The time has come for the United States to cease paying for NATO and idle the operations of its European military bases until such time as the countries of Western Europe begin adhering to the terms of the treaty. But Europe is not likely to begin adhering to the promises it made when it signed the treaty. This is because the countries of Western Europe have, in the last eight years, become nothing more than teenagers living in mommy's and daddy's base basement playing video games, smoking dope, and giggling like imbeciles.
There will be some pain for the US as they let go the significant subsidies from Europe for the military-industrial complex. But in the end both the US and Europe would be better off for Europe standing on its own feet.
The military industrial complex will do just fine filling European orders for armaments that they should have acquired years ago. The USA will continue to arm up and reorient toward the Pacific region.
His point was that there *won't* be European orders to be filled by the U.S. M.I.C.
No NATO, no need to maintain NATO uniformity of weapons, training and materiel. Maybe go back to buying Russian nat gas and oil to replace U.S LNG. Get weapons systems from China produced in Europe. Maybe setup an informal alliance between Europe, Russia and China. Construct a security architecture as the new name for it seems to be, carving up the world into spheres of of influence. Leave the western hemisphere with its cartels and rebels to the U.S.
Not sure how you think that is such a great outcome for the U.S. Maybe inevitable but not sure why you are enthusiastic about it.
Yes, "the reports of NATO's death are greatly exaggerated." However, NATO must and will change due to 1) growing fiscal limitations in the USA; and 2) a feeling among Americans that America bears too much of NATO's cost. The latter is reflected in Trump's rhetoric.
Each member country contributes by spending on its *own* military needs in harmony with NATOs organization. America does not call up NATO headquarters and say here are our annual dues.
It is the other way round. America calls up NATO and says we want the European countries to buy more American designed and produced gear. We want the European members fo NATO to continue allowing us to keep our bases in their countries even though that exposes them to increased risk. We want the European countries in NATO to conduct themselves politically and militarily more closely with American needs. And in the end, if we aren't satisfied with the performance of European members of NATO in conforming to our plans we will just walk away in a huff no matter how much they spent on being in NATO.
NATO is a defence alliance. It should not be involved in Iran. That being said, European allies, should at the very least allow access to bases and perhaps even provide other resources as they are more threatened by oil market disruption and possible terrorist retaliation than is the US. European participation should clearly not be under NATO command.
NATO is a great arrangement for all members. A similar pact should be formed in the Pacific to contain China. PATO would consist of the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and yet Taiwan
Not at all. A considerable amount of NATO spending ends up with US defense contractors. Maintaining relations with allies also opens up markets for other US products and services. Without NATO, those allies could be drawn into other orbits, closing markets to US companies and potentially setting the stage for a costly future US military intervention if those regimes turn hostile. NATO is an incredibly good deal. The Europeans realize this and Trump is correct in forcing them to assume more of the cost. Unfortunately, how he could have done say with more tact and less chaos.
It would be a breath of fresh air here in the old USA to see our international defense industries be forced into a bit of downsizing...maybe we need this current influx of foreign workers to 'leech' off of our American society. The USA for the USA!
It appears to be a four-fer, take the stuffing out of the mad mullahs so the 12th Mahdi doesn'tcome too soon, choke off China energy markets, boost American gas and oil sales, and build in a powerful 'excuse' the US can now pull out as its trump card to become more 'choosy' about just what/when/why the US will help NATO countries in the future
What is NATO's "defensive" position in Ukraine...from the foolish Obama attempts to bring his Rainbow Colored schemes to Russia's heartland, to subverting the elections of conservative NATO countries to those favorable to the 'warmongers'?
Point is irrelevant as Ukraine isn't a NATO member and Russia has not attacked any NATO member That being said, it is in the interest of all western countries to contain Russian influence. Allowing Russia to capture Ukrainian terrain puts it closer to NATO countries and rewards its expansionist ambitions. Crushing Russia now is cheaper than punting to the future. Again, the European countries need to step up with resources. It is win-win for the US as it will benefit from European military spending and help in defeating a geopolitical enermy.
<<<<< they are more threatened by oil market disruption and possible terrorist retaliation than is the US<<<<<<
It is Europe that is already affected by oil market disruption and terrorist actions. A direct and immediate consequence of American actions that were not discussed with Europe. That's because America didn't consider Europe worth including in considerations regardless of the impact of those actions on Europe. It is likely that you agree with that American position but you can hardly expect the Europeans to agree.
But not *regardless*. Europe doesn't accept your definition of their responsibility to do what you want them to do.
Your view is that they should act in America's interests no matter what the cost to Europe. Europe could just easily wonder why America doesn't act in Europe's interest in regards to the Gulf conflict. Virtually every American is happy to proclaim that America is largely unaffected directly by the outcome there, whatever it might be.
America has already imposed the energy supply disruption on them. If America succeeds with its stated objectives Europe can expect to see thirty or forty million, maybe more, maybe a lot more, refugees show up on their border. Many of the refugees will plenty of attitude toward the west.
Of course, there are these thoughts from President Eisenhower...
Key Details of Eisenhower's Views on NATO
1951 Ten-Year Goal: Shortly after taking command, Eisenhower expressed that if U.S. troops weren't returned within 10 years, the mission would be a failure.
Temporary Nature: He viewed NATO as a temporary, "stop-gap" measure to allow Western Europe time to rebuild its defense capabilities.
"Weaning" Europe: By the late 1950s, he grew frustrated that European allies weren't taking on enough of their own defense burdens.
Burden Sharing: In 1953, he warned that the "American well can run dry," emphasizing that European nations needed to take over to prevent an indefinite U.S. troop presence.
I don’t understand how Europe can deny the US access to their own bases and planes (even if not supporting the Iran war, which is their right), and yet still complain about the Strait of Hormuz being blocked. Uh, I think the US needs access to their planes and resources on the bases to even try to unblock the Strait.
I completely understand that Trump and his posts on X annoy you to no end (I can hear your eye roll from America when I read those posts online lol), but I do think there is a greater chance than ever before that he will try to re-negotiate NATO (as he did the Canadian/Mexican trade treaty) because it is quite lopsided (as I presented in an earlier post). I do think he intends to try and start a Teddy Roosevelt hemisphere strategy.
They're not really complaining about the Strait of Hormuz, it's treated like an act of god in most political discourse here. The prevailing belief is that only diplomatic/political paths can open it, the oil shortages are coming and they're going to last a while regardless of what anybody does, the silver lining is that it will encourage more RenEwaBlEs, etc.
Oil is down 10% from the March 19th high. But ask anyone in the street and they think oil is off the scale...because that's what the hysterical media is telling them.
look, nobody wants this to turn out fine more than me, but all signs are that we're going to be facing serious supply shortages in the coming months. we're already getting work-from-home advisories and the like, the big areas of concern in Europe are diesel and jet fuel right now.
Oh no! Trump is destroying one of the most evil, murdering, torturing exporters of deadly ideologies the world has seen in decades, close to getting nukes, which they won't hesitate to use and YOU are worried about working from home and having fuel shortages. For goodness sake have some self awareness and understand the misery that Iran has dished out in 47 years and exported - and WAS on track to massively increase. Sorry to use the Germany WW2 analogy but if Trump was around in 1936 when Hitler marched into the Rhineland, WW2 would have been stopped right there and then...as long as various moaners didn't stop him because 'loud bangs might upset my granny'. Six other Arab countries want the Iranian regime stopped, now. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, not a small business was 100% right (to the horror of the Trump hating chattering classes) when he said 'the world will be a better place when this job is done'.
Where's the shock? Every US president has talked about taking on Iran. The Middle East has been in flames since October 7th 2023 attacks by Hamas, backed by Iran. Trump made it very clear he was going to act and we all watched the US taskforce heading to Iran in February, clearly not for a friendly chat. The price of oil is dropping right now, much to the disgust of the Trump hating media. This could be the shortest war with the most incredibly positive outcome for the Iranian people and the entire region. But maybe you preferred to gamble with the idea of a mushroom cloud and a million dead in Europe? The missile Iran fired on the Chagos Islands was about the same distance as Rome. Thanks to Trump, China has gone a bit cold on backing Iran. Who cares about some short term inconvenience?
You're right about all of that in the short run. In the longer run, a short sharp shock now might get some countries to reconsider the slide they've long been on with de-industrialization and the ratio of wealth-producing versus resource-depleting groups currently and prospectively residing in their territories. Which European countries want fertilizer and food and warmth and productive citizens more than green rainbow vibes? Which can wrench their ruling classes out of economically unsustainable policies before they pass a tipping point (that Germany may have already passed)?
Soft times make soft men; soft men make hard times. Hard times, we'll see.
I’m sure they will love the “renewables” angle, oof. That’s DOA. But surely opening the Strait should be the most pressing issue??? I mean industry in Germany is already struggling greatly, what will happen to car manufacturers, etc??Ah, those good ole’ diplomatic paths, hmmm more bureaucracy and little change…
<<<<<and yet still complain about the Strait of Hormuz being blocked. <<<<
It is America/Israel that is blocking the strait not Iran.
It is the western insurance companies that have withdrawn practical insurance coverage that is stopping the ships from moving. They have raised the cost and limitations on the available coverage in the region because their ships would be at risk. A risk initiated by America.
Ships can move through the strait without coverage by using Iranian protection (for a fee) Assorted countries request that protection and pay the fee for ships that are considered theirs or have cargo destined for them.
America does not provide that sort of protection to anyone nor are they likely to in the near future. Currently they are intent on continuing the war at a high tempo. They are deliberately focused on keeping the Gulf and Strait a high risk zone because it suits their interests but definitely not Europe's.
I saw a couple nights ago that President Trump bought insurance via Lloyd’s of London for every vessel on the Strait of Hormuz. The contract stated the USA was paying the full cost for all ships. Anyone else see that?
Oh, the irony. NATO was set up to keep us Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down (quote). Okay, good. So almost 50 years later, the two Germanys are united peacefully, the Soviet Union disintegrates peacefully, and releases its Eastern European vassal states. But the Americans were still in. So what happens? The Americans fund and foment yet another European war which kills one and a half million Ukrainians, taunts the Russians and incites the rest of the European states to start a war with Russia.
So NATO might as well dismantle since it did not accomplish its original mission, and its American wing has brought Europe to the brink of yet another round of massive carnage.
I've resigned myself to seeming like a slimy sycophant in the eyes of some of the assembled.
It's just remarkable to me. The handful of Substacks I pay my precious coin to, it's obvious I do so because I value their work enough to tighten my belt for, but this guy here, he's the only one I have never ever found anything to disagree with in his analyses or his opinions. Not once. I don't know how it's possible to be so sensible.
Of all the participants in NATO, the US is pretty much the only one that is meeting the challenge of the Islamic conquest of the world. THAT is the enemy to be addressed or Europe must prepare to be under the musloid thumb. Iran and the conflict under way there, at this time, is a very large part of that challenge that must be won.
Like alcoholics and junkies, Europe doesn't even seem to think they have a problem.
I think too many people are taking the mainstream media’s words for this being an “unpopular war”… Everyone I know is 100% for this!
What I do see the mainstream media doing is staying in their echo chamber, asking the purple haired, nose-ring people what they think. They already have TDS, so what do you think they are going to say?!
I do have a question for y’all across the pond… Do most people in Europe really WANT to be under sharia law? 🤔😬 You do know that if this continues, you ALL will be under sharia law, whether you want it or not! You ladies better get used to wearing a burka and hijab. The ladies in Iran, prior to this devilish Muslim administration that took over, were normally dressed as well. It’s so sad… 😞
I am also confident in saying that most people here in the United States of America want NO PART of the heavy “musloid thumb.” Pushback in a lot of places has begun… We want to keep our dogs… 🐶 Our arms… 🔫 Our bacon, 🥓 and our freedom!
Europe has sent so much money and armaments to Ukraine, an ostensible dictatorship, given the ‘delay’ of elections, yet decries the war against a dictatorship that has sponsored terrorism across Europe and is killing its own civilians? There’s more to this than political posturing.
Opposing Islam never was any part of the mandate of NATO.
It should have been. But the Eurotards see Russia as a bigger threat
They mss an have a point.
NATO was an unlimited alliance to protect its members from any source of attack. By extension also any foreseeable threat.
Iran’s work on nukes, its extensive ballistic and other missiles development and concealed stocks and its support for proxies around the world easily exceeded the threshold of foreseeable threat.
As far as the UK is concerned our national interests and those of the US are usually very close on most issues. We should maintain an alliance by finding our forces accordingly.
Our interests are not so deeply aligned with continental Europe so an alliance with those states would not be so valuable to us unless part of an alliance with the US.
European countries should beware. If they break the NATO alliance we will see they are all swimming naked. Also, a US, UK and others alliance would be bound to operate at a security level in any non-member state. With the US State Department and CIA no longer funding EU integration the fall out for badly behaving politicians could be serious.
If European members of NATO will not see the necessity to eliminate existential threats by oil and gas restrictions and nuclear missiles then we have no use for them. If they refuse allies the use of assets be ally funds and needs then bases are of little value.
As far as I can see the right policy for the UK is:
1 spend double on defence
2 retain and protect our obverse as territories especially Gibraltar, Chagos and Falklands
3 provide defence support to long term (sometimes former) allies such as Gulf States and some in Africa
4 Mount intelligence operations in all other places to disrupt possible threats and opposition to our interests.
Naturally I want a full Brexit. Full control of our borders. Removal of illegals, criminals and those who will not support our culture and democracy. Cancellation of Net Zero and reinstatement of our manufacturing capacity.
"NATO was an unlimited alliance to protect its members from any source of attack"
Problem is, when you eagerly invite them in, you can't perceive the attack.
Excellent… You might have to get rid of Starmer and a bunch of your politicians to realize this goal. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽
NATO didn't specify threats. Any threat was a threat. It appears the Europeans can't recognize threats when they roll up in a panzer division or a call to prayer.
It was a protective alliance, intended to resist any would-be conqueror.
Thank you!!!
Opposing totalitarianism most definitely was the NATO mandate, and still is per the US. Defense of liberty-focused Western civilization (which is not tolerated by Islamists) was the absolute core, which appears to have been abandoned by the EU central authorities and a plurality of the EU/NATO governments.
It is tautologically obvious that it is not in the US interest to support (much less subsidize the defense of) governments that oppose our interests.
Is the Islamic conquest of the world in the room with us?
What I see is Bibi driving the israelis to paranoia with his fear mongering to stay in power and Trump being his willing lapdog and starting a war without thinking about long term consequences.
And lets not forget which country was the biggest promoter of diversity and mass migration until yesterday to the extent that white children are now a minority.
Or which countries perpetual Middle Eastern wars are driving millions of refugees to Europe.
It's actually part of the islamic doctrine and enough muslim clerics, leaders and fellow cultists have admitted to this. So why not take them at their word?
And the US is buddies with the fundamentalist muslim Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Gulf rulers who promote this doctrine all over the globe. The US & friends also supported militarily radical islamists in Syria and Libya against their far more secular governments.
The US establishment actually really likes islamists since the 80's so I'm not buying that they are bombing Iran because they are islamists.
Unfortunately, that's true, but it doesn't negate my statement on the doctrine of Islam. And let's not pretend that these countries have ever been stable. But it seems they are better suited to be dictatorships to keep a handle on the extremists.
That they are Islamists is not even the official rationale. Iran is being singled out (officially) because of their nuclear weapons development program, their threats to destroy Israel, and their past behavior in supporting terrorist groups. But these are also things that the US has tolerated for years, if not decades. I'd speculate that the real reason is geopolitical--an effort to keep China from gaining a foothold in the world's biggest oil producing region.
Another reason may be political -- Trump placating the neocons and neolibs in the War Party, and Israel's powerful congressional lobbies, in order to gain traction for his domestic agenda, including passing the SAVE Act before the midterms, and funding ICE in order to continue the deportation effort.
Iran is not generically "Muslim" but Shia. Huge difference!
Unlike the Saudis and the Sunni-ruled Gulf states, Iran has NOT made serious efforts to spread Islam to non-Islamic countries or regions.
The West has been subjected to decades of forced immigration low-quality Muslim (Sunni) migrants. This was quite intentionally EXACERBATED by failure to police and manage the hordes while allowing them to suck of the public teat.
Muslim abuses were well documented in the media throughout most of this period. As a result, Shia Iran is now tarred with the same brush as its unprincipled Sunni enemies.
The flooding of social systems (aka "Cloward-Piven Strategy¨) is design to accelerate the decline and failure of Western societies preparatory to plundering and enslaving them for the benefit of global oligarchs.
Exactly, and unfortunately, not enough people realize this. Rather, they parrot the propaganda that Islam is "mostly peaceful". At Islam's very core, it is not peaceful. It states clearly what they are compelled to do by Allah, which is to convert the world to Islam, and to kill those who refuse to convert. There are many videos online featuring Muslim clerics saying exactly that, and they are saying it from the U.K., France, and any number of European countries. One example: "We are not here to assimilate. We are here to take over." These people are not hiding what they want, plan and are ordered by their religion to do. The problem is the Westerners don't want to hear it.
Islam specifically states purposely migrating for purposes of creating new Muslim territory (“Hijra”), is Jihad second only to going to war on the infidels/nonbelievers. The invasions of Europe and the US are intended for conquest. So, yes, it is in the room for those of who have educated ourselves about the reality of Islam.
As for Trump being an Israeli lapdog, that’s foolishness. Trump has focused on Iran since, I believe, the late 90s. Any assertion there is no plan is absurd. How can anyone think the US military has not planned and continued to plan since the Carter Hostage Crisis.
And thinking Israelis understand that a level of paranoia is justified when their neighbors murder and rape them while laughing and 90% of Gazans celebrated. Pretty sure that is not really paranoia, but realistic fear that should and was reacted to appropriately.
Someone needs to get a better news source.
The musloid thump seems to be doing pretty well in the US. At least In my neck of the woods. Buying up property like crazy, Halal restaurants everywhere, mosques being built everywhere. Just Google " nearby mosque or masjid in my area " you'll be shocked! I'd like to know where all the money is coming from.
Sheesh man. That's some primitive behavior. Just cause you dislike someone is no reason to pick a fight and all this blather about the Islamist conquest...well, what is there to say except "dispell."
Now, I'm no fan of uncontrolled immigration, but that threat comes more from EU "leaders" than from Muslims who want nothing to do with whitey even though they find themselves paid to be the EU underclass. Sort your glasses dude!
Dismiss Islamic conquest at your own peril. Suggest reading up a bit on previous Islamic conquests....extending into the Iberian peninsula as one example.
Will someone please tell Dearborn? All those Muslims there that swung the election for Trump.
They forst need to be told to move into the 21st century
No, they need to be deported… They need to go back to their Somalian homeland! We are very tired of all the fraud…
That would of course be first price.
Because we voted to get them out.
You did. And they voted for no genocide in Gaza. Truly, Trump is all things to all people.
Well, possibly, if the Iran war is as successful as we hope (some possibility, I think), then a lot of emigration from Muslim lands will go down. I hope a lot. And Iran will need to be rebuilt. Plenty of jobs for lots of people.
Then, will the West force the re-migration of the Muslim horde that has come upon them. Or suicidal empathy.
Damn! Western Civilization deserves better than what European leaders are doing so far.
SSholes like you, Trumplestiltskin and Satanyahu (mileikovsky) are the real enemy. And all the dooshbags who upvoted you. Be certain that ten times more would downvote if they could.
Opinions vary.
I live in Europe. We don't have the alcoholics and junkies that I see in almost every US state. Opposing Islam never a NATO "challenge." .
The junkies in destroyed cities are mostly a blue state phenomenon. Blues states that are run by the left wing American democrat party.
I've read the books. You are wishfully oversimplifying the problems crushing the soul of America.
you "read the books" huh?
The only places with junkies of all types are the cities where the lefties reside.
And you don’t have much militarily, either. Enjoy that $10 gallon gasoline.
I don’t want to be involved in any Spat, but I must share my common sense about the situation:
1) Telling someone in a relationship you won’t do them a favor calls for an explanation and apology. Maybe those were given but I haven heard of that level of politeness. 2)This military action began because IRan refused further negotiations after three weeks. Only other move on the chessboard was a strike on the USA. Further, the Trump administration determined that Iran had begun enrichment of uranium right after the 12 hour Midnight Hammer. They were at 60% and would have had the capability of destroying us, and that means you. Our President is taking this action for the world, especially for the next generation.
Con’t- I understand the US spends a fortune for our bases on your land. Do you really want them off the Continent? We lose when we cannot refuel in a military operation. You lose when…well, we don’t know. This is a long relationship, and we should stick with it.
I enjoy my free and accessible healthcare (I can walk to) my natural, affordable vegetables, meats and fish (I can walk to), my own fruit trees, professional civil servants as police, neighbors bringing all sorts of gifts ... Oh, you can read my next book to see what it's like in a traditional village here!
I love when someone say “free and accessible health care”. As if it just grows on trees and you just pick it. I hate to break it to you, but there’s no “free” health care. You or someone else is paying for it, one way or another.
The other thing she neglects to mention is the 18 month wait for a simple surgery. Or the quality of outcomes which aren't. But 'free' really carries weight in Europe. They don't get that when the government feeds, houses, taxes and provides medical care and education, you are basically a government slave. In the UK you have to support that dreadful royal globalists family too. 🤢 It's a cultural difference between us and them you can't get past. 'Free' for them is the most important. 'Freedom' for us is more important. Although that's slipping here too.
Indeed. The Germans just realised that their socialised healthcare have a huge black hole that needs to be filled. A €30 billion hole that needs to be filled with higher contributions or cutting of benefits.
I’m 70 years old, owned and operated my own businesses, raised a family, have lived on three continents, worked my way through two college degrees; first in my family to earn one. I know who pays for everything, George.
So why do you call it free health care?
What do you think about all of the arrests from social media posts (hate speech) in the UK?
I think we are living under global fascism. I think the Iran War is probably mostly fake (read Mike Huggins) and part of the Great (sic) Reset. A global digital currency and ID - poverty, serfdom for us, and more for the Palantirs and Epstein-ites are the goal. We need to stand together as non-trans-humans and fight like Hell.
If you think the Iran war is mostly fake, you should perhaps speak to a few Iranians about that. Or maybe a few million of them who had to flee Iran over the years.
Bad news for lovers of liberty.
Where is this free and accessible healhcare you're talking about? How fast can you get an appointment to see your house doctor or specialist? You mention you can walk everywhere. If you need to go to the city, are the reliable public transport? Are you discouraged to have a car?
> It is the province of internet crazies like me to call for the phase-out of NATO. The Americans are not going to do it and the Europeans aren’t either.
Sadly true. I'm also an internet crazy who has been advocating for such a thing since the mid 90's. Oooooh, probably a full thirty years, at this point! Damn, I'm getting *old*.
Not crazy, rational. Maybe not phase-out, but reconfigure, re-focus, and re-think NATO, the EU, and Russia. Why are Spain and France part of NATO?
When the USSR collapsed and wanted to westernize, the EU and the US got very aggressive with NATO, and went into Russia like carpetbaggers. If we hadn’t done that, perhaps the world would be a better place.
Sign me up as a member of that club too.
Russia isn't the Red Army of the USSR, and the only military threat to Europe as a whole is (drum roll) the USA, in theory at least.
No other power has the capacity but the USA to win a war against a European military alliance, in Europe - and no power at all has the might to take the war to the USA's mainland.
The only thing NATO is protecting is the profits of the mil-int complex and the bankers.
You forget an Iranian missile with a nuclear warhead. Yes, I think and hope that risk has been eliminated, for now.
Sadly, the whole big bowl of lies of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction gets in the way of any such warning from Israel and the USA.
Doubly sad since I do not doubt the Iranian regime would dearly like to have nuclear-capable missiles.
However, one thing: Iran does not consider any European nation an enemy.
Israel, Saudi, Irak, Turkey, and sundry Gulf States however...
I'm so sure as you.
The Europeans tend to be quite Russophobic, which is understandable based on history, but seems unwarranted. The Russians have neither the means nor the intention of taking on Western Europe militarily. If indeed Russia is not a threat, then NATO makes no sense and the US should have withdrawn long ago. Russophobia has been ginned up in the US by grifting neocons working for and funded by munitions contractors, and led to the most unwise expansion of NATO right up to and unofficially in Ukraine. Imagine what the US would do if similarly confronted from Mexico or Canada. I see President Trump's use of the current situation to undermine US support for continuation of NATO as positive.
NATO should have disbanded in 1991. Maybe by foolishly opening a second front in the US-Russia proxy war, Trump will finally be forced to agree a new security architecture. In which case the NATO-bashing might be a preparatory signal?
Key Details of Eisenhower's Views on NATO
1951 Ten-Year Goal: Shortly after taking command, Eisenhower expressed that if U.S. troops weren't returned within 10 years, the mission would be a failure.
Temporary Nature: He viewed NATO as a temporary, "stop-gap" measure to allow Western Europe time to rebuild its defense capabilities.
"Weaning" Europe: By the late 1950s, he grew frustrated that European allies weren't taking on enough of their own defense burdens.
Burden Sharing: In 1953, he warned that the "American well can run dry," emphasizing that European nations needed to take over to prevent an indefinite U.S. troop presence.
I Like Ike.
The Europeans have repeatedly invaded Russia and suffered greatly as they've repeatedly lost. They need to look in the mirror and pay for their own defense.
Yes..Russia was our ally in WW2 and suffered more losses than any other allied nation.
They also started WW2 in alliance with Germany by invading Poland, the Baltic countries and Finland so it was only an alliance of necessity.
Should be taught in all schools.
If so, then teach along with that the plain fact that Russia, or the USSR, together with Nazi Germany started WWII.
Churchill called WW2 'the unneccessary war' because it should never have happened. Britain and France could have stopped Hitler in 1936 when he marched into the Rhineland. It's well known that he knew he was taking a chance and was amazed Britain and France did nothing. Weakness emboldens dictators. Three years later was too late.
And a fairly strong movement to work out a deal with Hitler rather than fight him.
It took a much stronger movement...and piles of corpses...to fight Hitler rather than making a deal?
90% of Americans don't appear to know this.
Americans only know what their Red or Blue 'pied piper' has told them to believe this week!
The only use of NATO for the US is bases and air rights. Deny them and we have no reason to support NATO. Trump is replacing the UN with his Board of Peace. Next he should replace NATO.
Thank you!!!
Europe continues to show its weakness. In the UK , if Thatcher was still here do you think we'd have bloody charity enabled illegal immigrants coming across the channel in dinghies-I don't think so. So if we can't protect our own people at home what chance have we of showing anything other than abject cowardice abroad. I'm ashamed to be British. We're getting what we deserve from Trump and the USA.
Praying for our brothers and sisters across the pond… you have a beautiful country. 🙏🏽
Thank you, we used to before islamification !
And will again. As the people rise up and throw off the stupid leftists, and their ideas. Hmm. Not sure you have a Churchill as a prospective leader, yet. Eh?
And Trump knows it too.
exactly. Thatcher was one of the greats.
My brother divorced, working shit jobs, moved in with us while we were dealing with a new infant. My wife was not happy about it. He was there for a year, before I had found him a better job and kicked him out while helping him get into an apartment. That job led him to a career in tech where his life improved.
However, today he denies he got help from me (my wife is livid about it, but I don't care), and also still has a chip on his shoulder that me and his other brother are much more financially successful. He is a Marxist and believes we should be taxed more, and he should get more government benefits... and he should also be recognized as an accomplished and high-status person because he deserves it.
He is 2 years younger than me and has been retired for five years after being fired from his job as a network tech, and I am still working.
My little brother is like old Europe. Helped by the US to prop him up to a good life but unwilling to admit it and unwilling to take responsibility for his own situation. He is retired early after never working as hard and never making equivalent good life choices.
Old Europe is like my little brother... except now it is more like my little sister after having gone through gender transition surgery and feminization programming.
Great analogy, btw.
Did you also firebomb your brother within an inch of his life, before brainwashing him and using him as a mercenary for 50 years to hold back your enemies?
Empires don’t come for free. Neither did yours.
You make zero sense. Old Europe caused both world wars and is working on a third with Russia and Ukraine. The US was isolationist and reluctant to join WWI and again with WWII. Only when the threats grew to involve the US did we get involved. Then we passed the Bretton Woods Act to try and prevent old Europe from doing it again. It worked, but it came at a great cost to the US, and it corrupted old Europe to think it was more self-sufficient than it was. The US is pulling back... kicking old Europe out of the house and making them care for themselves... and like my brother they are stupidly blaming the US for their misery... both denying that the US was caring for them and refusing to take responsibility for their own defense and economic vitality.
A case can be made that if the US had not intervened in WWI, then chances of WWII breaking out would have been greatly reduced.
Without the US in WWI there would not have been an armistice on November 11, 1918.
I agree, Germany and Britan were both worn out and might well have ended up with a stalemate in France like there is in Korea.
On top of that in WW2 130 some million US citizens went ahead to out produce the rest of the world in just 3 1/2 years. I lived in DC and started school in January 1944 and while there was some rationing and we have a victory garden in school and gave a dime a week for War Bonds my childhood did not seem deprived in any way.
Brilliant.
Yup
Good analysis. It sounds like the kind of political spat where there's a lot of posturing and everyone wins. The U.S. War Department will be inconvenienced, but does it really need the NATO bases in question in order to supply its warships and forward bases? Trump scores points for talking tough. The European leaders score points for talking tough. And . . . let's face it, NATO has been unnecessary ever since the Soviet Union collapsed and the Warsaw Pact ceased to exist.
If we don’t need the bases, why are we there?
They make logistics of fighting a military engagement thousands of miles from the U.S. much easier.
True, but that seems to contradict your original observation.
At any rate, not if their use can be denied on a country by country basis. A base you can’t depend on using is nothing more than a potential convenience. You can’t base your plans on it. So you might as well not have them.
If I were Trump, Britain, Spain & France could anticipate serious pain.
Not when the US is denied use of them exactly when fighting a military engagement thousands of miles from the US. Which is, I believe, Rubio's exact point.
Europe has much more to lose than U.S.
I listened to a speech by Russian Def. Minister Sergei Lavrov recently. He was quite explicit about his hatred for the Europeans, and rightly pointed out that Europe has been at war constantly for the last 1500 years. The Europeans tried to invade Russia twice. They have never really let Russia alone. Lavrov blamed the Europeans for dragging the Americans into their squabbles (which is actually true).
But now the problem in the United States is that vicious little nest of Neocons and Zionists who are lusting for war all over the Middle East (and beyond). Coming out on top after WWII gave us a big ego and a lot of hubris. We slowly became an empire, and empires have a way of collapsing. I suspect this is coming soon.
No. U.S. and Israel are reducing the Iranian terror threat before Iran acquires more and better missiles, defense systems, and nuclear bombs. This type of action would be much more difficult after Iran had those things.
The threat to the US comes only from Israel. Israel is at war with the US as we speak.
Not so sure about that. DO Trump & Netanyahu disagree often and on many things - yes - but nothing that hasn't been able to be worked out...
I understand where you get those ideas, & I realize that many people have them.
But I differ. The "Iranian terror threat" consists of Iran's support for violent resistance to the Zionist population replacement program. I cannot claim that the whole region would calm down if the Israeli state were to change policy and have a multi-ethnic society, but honestly I opine that the situation is hopeless, & that gets into matters too complicated for a comment.
Regarding the direct threat from the Iranian state: Netanyahu and Trump opined that the Iranian state was defenseless, not a threat, when they started what they told us would be a blitz.
Yes, I did hear Marco Rubio say that a reason for starting war on 28 February was that eventually the Iranian state would eventually build up enough conventional military force to "make this impossible", meaning deter a war of aggression. I understand people could be impressed with that argument, but several other states also have enough military strength by themselves to deter aggression.
Also, we were told last June (by both the Israeli and US governments) that Iran would never have a nuke, and that the issue was settled for the forseeable future. If we cannot believe the previous announcements of victory, we cannot believe the excuses we're getting now.
As the Iranian UN ambassador pointed out, Iran, a non-nuclear nation, which signed the NPT and allowed international inspections, was attacked by two nuclear nations. If anything could convince the Iranians to now develop a nuclear weapon, this war is it. If you have a nuclear weapon, the US will leave you alone.
Iran has allowed inspections—often extensively. But not consistently, and not always at all sites.
That inconsistency is a big reason why the issue remains controversial.
And how about Israel's inspections? How about Israel's attitude toward the NPT?
A bit of asymmetry here.
No. Iran has no reason to enrich uranium beyond 5% except for military purposes. As of early 2026, the IAEA reported that Iran had accumulated approximately 440.9 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60% purity. Steve Witkoff said, "They told us directly they had enough enriched uranium to produce 11 nuclear bombs, and they were proud of it."
In June 2025, Operation Midnight Hammer obliterated the Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear facilities. The 60% enriched uranium is either now buried beneath the rubble, or Iran had previously stored it in another location.
Iran could enrich 60% uranium to 90% in a matter of weeks. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has maintained that intelligence shared with the U.S. showed Iran was working on a secret plan to "weaponize" uranium, moving beyond just enrichment.
I don't believe that Iranian officials told Steve Witkoff that Iran could produce and deliver 11 nuclear bombs. Also, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not a reliable source, partly because he's been trying to persuade us to be terrified of an Iranian nuclear bomb for a long enough time that the Iranian state would have one if it had the technical capacity. I've looked for documentation to support the assertion that 60% enriched uranium can be upgraded to 90% in two weeks, but have not found it.
I did find support for your assertion that 5% is enough for generating electricity. This article might be more technical and beside-the-point than you want, but its the best I could do before running out of time. https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/uranium-enrichment-explained
Where is the Laugh button, please?
For an excellent discussion of this topic, I recommend "A Republic, not an Empire: Reclaiming America's Destiny" by Patrick J. Buchanan. Written in 1999, it has aged well.
Thank you. I am a big fan of Patrick Buchanan (is he still alive?).
That's misreading the situation. The globalist empire already collapsed. Covidian overreach took them over the cliff. This action is mopping up.
80+% of regular American citizens are sick of Iran's troublemaking all around the globe. It's all going to end; Spain and Italy can take up the mantle of hating America if it suits them -- we won't care. We won't have to care. De-industrialization and/or abandonment of the strengths of Western culture have most of the Old World on its deathbed. Those around it are mouthing platitudes that he'll be back up-and-about Real Soon Now, but in the kitchen they're preparing the funeral meats.
Keep listening to Lavrov, and you risk being declared an incompetent idiot.
Duh
Assuming that the Iranian government is 7th Century batshit-crazy (and I assume they are), this really is not a war of choice. It's to take out the No. 1 state sponsor of international terror, a government on the verge of assembling nuclear missiles. All of Christian Europe should be on board with this. Oh. My bad. They aren't Christian anymore.
You'd think that the missile IRAN popped off to Diego Garcia - which in effect could have reached a number of European capitals - would have been a wake-up call for the Europeans. Their denial feels very much like 1910-1914 when they were living in la-la-land.
100%
A South African nuclear scientist who has visited the Iranian nuclear facilities, has made several posts stating that the Iranian nuclear program - official and registered with the IAEA - is for medical purposes and that there is no intention or sign that a weapon might be built. Iran hasn't been in a war in another country in almost 150 years and that was not started by Iran. I am much more concerned about the Middle East's proven warmonger - Israel - that does have nuclear weapons derived from an unregistered nuclear program.
Yikes. One of us has an appreciation of the facts far different from the other one. All of those spinning centrifuges, pushing their U235 concentrations to weapons-grade. Just for "medical purposes", I am sure. Yes, Israel has nukes, and so do we (US), and neither concerns me at all. The bomb that incinerates Tel Aviv, or Des Moines, won't be coming from either. It will come from a country which chants "Death to America" with great frequency. But maybe they don't mean it. Maybe they're just LARPing.
But they admit concentrating to the 60% level as confirmed by the same IAEA.
Your comment contains the assumption that an outsider, a South African nuclear scientist, in the course of his visit was told and saw all the nuclear facilities in Iran and the Iranians showed him everything they had, and furthermore, that the Iranians wouldn't lie to him or anything like that. I suppose all those thousands of missiles and drones and massive war equipment were also just for medical purposes?
Thank you!!
Aha! Netanyahu is still alive! And posting on Substack!
Yes, bwahahahaha I am the Mouth of Sauron and I work for the Jerusalem Post.
Nice to meet you!
I need a Laugh button, again.
"They aren't Christian anymore".
They're soon to be Muslim. At the point of a sword. Apparently they don't realize that yet.
The No. 1 state sponsor of terror is either the US or Israel.
If Iran does build nuclear weapons, in your opinion, which European country will it nuke first, when, and why? If you can't give a coherent response to this question, you should stop worrying about Iran.
The European country called Israel. But I can also see a nuke going off in a shipping container somewhere in a Kansas City railyard. Europe is being conquered by Islamic immigration and reproduction. No nukes required.
There's no country in Europe called ‘Israel’. There's one in Asia, populated mostly by brown non-European Christian-hating goblins.
So, all of Christian Europe should be on board with this losing war of aggression because a Jewish (not Christian, Jewish) state might get nuked? I don't follow the logic.
Last I looked, those goblins were mostly European Ashkenazim.
Look again then. Two thirds of the population are Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews.
I concede your point. And withdraw my description of Israel as "Europe." Is Europe European anymore? I suppose it still is, but demographics are eating away at them.
The West hasn't been Christian for a very long time. Their god is mammon and they are mostly shallow materialists who lust for blood and death and destruction and self gain. Many don't consider the Beatitudes as a goal.
In the USA, Christians think God is a vending machine...He's up there to serve them while they all wait for Jesus in their bunkers with their guns and ammo. That, is batshit crazy.
Having both guns and ammo (and, importantly, water and MREs), I resemble that remark! (I am working on the bunker.) Returning to the question at hand, the West won't be defended by beatitudes, but, if at all, by bright steel. I for one am not waiting for Jesus to do it for me.
banned for a month for being stupid and inflammatory for no reason.
It got a suspiciously high number of likes and is still getting likes now after the suspension….
Curious…what was the banned comment about? (Without you know, repeating the inflammatory stuff)
I dont know because one minute it was there and getting a lot of likes (Maybe that crazed trope of hating only one religion and blaming them for everything). I’m a long time follower and I don’t ever remember an UncleWiggly posting, so I’m guessing a troll.
You can still read the comment, by clicking in the show link. It said "fuck Europe. Your islam now and you are dead to us"
Thanks for sharing. Yes that is wee bit harsh
> Your Islam now
True, but we can at least still do spelling and grammar.
As a Brit, I agree. We really didn’t vote for this. The question was never asked.
Stopped reading at 'deeply unpopular Iran war'. It's not 'deeply unpopular' with the millions of people suffering and tortured inside Iran. You've fallen for the MSM/Islam's, 'keep pretending Iran isn't a problem, keep throwing money at them' plan. How out of touch can you be?
I am talking about Europe, where it is unpopular. This is an entirely neutral piece as far as the war goes. I know emotions run high on this topic but I think it’s reasonable to ask that I be held accountable for things I actually say and not things you might imagine I’m saying.
I'd be curious to know how extensively European press is reporting on the war. And also, do a lot of Europeans still read the traditional press or do they get a lot of their information online now?
American actions against Iran aren’t popular with some European politicians because they’re terrified of their extremist voters. But amongst Europeans who understand the evils of the regime and the direction their missile programs were heading, Trump is RIGHTLY a massive hero.
The Iran war IS deeply unpopular with a significant segment of Trump's MAGA base, which is something he has to consider.
FALSE - Trump's base is more than supportive albeit apprehensive. Polls at the recent CPAC conference were in the range of 85 to 95% on board with the Trump program.
CPAC is no longer the base. The base stayed away in droves. CPAC is the pay-to-play cadre, not the base.
91% fav w Rs, 66% w Ds
Trump’s maga base is fully with him on this now. Now if they try to put boots on the ground a la Iraq/Afghanistan, we'll see where the polling goes.
Depends a LOT on the question asked whether Rs support the war. And it looks like you are quoting the support on day 1 not support now. As of now even Rs want the war to end.
Only far-out Democrats.
Wrong again. An overwhelming majority of Democrats and Independents.
How out of touch can you be, Mrs Bucket?
The US/Israel attack on Iran is deeply unpopular across the world, across the West, across Europe (what Eugy is talking about), in the US, and even unpopular in Israel and within the MAGA base. But you have access to some secret polling data from inside Iran [do] you?
Since you ask a lot of questions, here's one for you: How much is the Putin regime paying you to spread misinformation?
Not enough! I need to ask for a raise. I should at least be getting the same 7000 shekels a month that Israel is paying you.
If there were any truth to that, I'd gladly split it with you.
🎯
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a mirage. It doesn't exist. There is no treaty because no country in Western Europe abides by its terms. This refusal to abide by the terms renders the Treaty moot and inoperative. The governments of Western Europe do not pay the amounts they agreed to pay, no where near it. The country of Western Europe do not provide the troops they agreed to provide, no where near it.
The treaty, in a word, is a joke. We may call it NATO but, in fact, NATO is merely a false name tag that has been placed on something else entirely. That something else is the military machine of the United States and the American taxpayers who foot the bill. So, let's stop pretending that there is such a thing as real NATO. There is not. It is a mirage.
The time has come for the United States to cease paying for NATO and idle the operations of its European military bases until such time as the countries of Western Europe begin adhering to the terms of the treaty. But Europe is not likely to begin adhering to the promises it made when it signed the treaty. This is because the countries of Western Europe have, in the last eight years, become nothing more than teenagers living in mommy's and daddy's base basement playing video games, smoking dope, and giggling like imbeciles.
There will be some pain for the US as they let go the significant subsidies from Europe for the military-industrial complex. But in the end both the US and Europe would be better off for Europe standing on its own feet.
The military industrial complex will do just fine filling European orders for armaments that they should have acquired years ago. The USA will continue to arm up and reorient toward the Pacific region.
His point was that there *won't* be European orders to be filled by the U.S. M.I.C.
No NATO, no need to maintain NATO uniformity of weapons, training and materiel. Maybe go back to buying Russian nat gas and oil to replace U.S LNG. Get weapons systems from China produced in Europe. Maybe setup an informal alliance between Europe, Russia and China. Construct a security architecture as the new name for it seems to be, carving up the world into spheres of of influence. Leave the western hemisphere with its cartels and rebels to the U.S.
Not sure how you think that is such a great outcome for the U.S. Maybe inevitable but not sure why you are enthusiastic about it.
What you say is just supposition. Can’t wait for the Europeans to rush into the arms of Russia and China!
CC
How is buying Russian nat gas/oil while getting weapons from China *rushing into the arms* of either one? It is the exact opposite.
Yes, "the reports of NATO's death are greatly exaggerated." However, NATO must and will change due to 1) growing fiscal limitations in the USA; and 2) a feeling among Americans that America bears too much of NATO's cost. The latter is reflected in Trump's rhetoric.
Jim Brown
NATO doesn't cost anything.
Each member country contributes by spending on its *own* military needs in harmony with NATOs organization. America does not call up NATO headquarters and say here are our annual dues.
It is the other way round. America calls up NATO and says we want the European countries to buy more American designed and produced gear. We want the European members fo NATO to continue allowing us to keep our bases in their countries even though that exposes them to increased risk. We want the European countries in NATO to conduct themselves politically and militarily more closely with American needs. And in the end, if we aren't satisfied with the performance of European members of NATO in conforming to our plans we will just walk away in a huff no matter how much they spent on being in NATO.
NATO is a defence alliance. It should not be involved in Iran. That being said, European allies, should at the very least allow access to bases and perhaps even provide other resources as they are more threatened by oil market disruption and possible terrorist retaliation than is the US. European participation should clearly not be under NATO command.
NATO is a great arrangement for all members. A similar pact should be formed in the Pacific to contain China. PATO would consist of the US, Canada, Japan, South Korea, the Phillipines, Singapore, New Zealand, Australia and yet Taiwan
Yeah right…we just pay for everything and get the blunt end up the kazoo…fuck nato and the EU.🤬
Not at all. A considerable amount of NATO spending ends up with US defense contractors. Maintaining relations with allies also opens up markets for other US products and services. Without NATO, those allies could be drawn into other orbits, closing markets to US companies and potentially setting the stage for a costly future US military intervention if those regimes turn hostile. NATO is an incredibly good deal. The Europeans realize this and Trump is correct in forcing them to assume more of the cost. Unfortunately, how he could have done say with more tact and less chaos.
It would be a breath of fresh air here in the old USA to see our international defense industries be forced into a bit of downsizing...maybe we need this current influx of foreign workers to 'leech' off of our American society. The USA for the USA!
IMO let the EU stand on its own…get off the american teat.
I’m America first ….nuff said🇺🇸
It appears to be a four-fer, take the stuffing out of the mad mullahs so the 12th Mahdi doesn'tcome too soon, choke off China energy markets, boost American gas and oil sales, and build in a powerful 'excuse' the US can now pull out as its trump card to become more 'choosy' about just what/when/why the US will help NATO countries in the future
What is NATO's "defensive" position in Ukraine...from the foolish Obama attempts to bring his Rainbow Colored schemes to Russia's heartland, to subverting the elections of conservative NATO countries to those favorable to the 'warmongers'?
Point is irrelevant as Ukraine isn't a NATO member and Russia has not attacked any NATO member That being said, it is in the interest of all western countries to contain Russian influence. Allowing Russia to capture Ukrainian terrain puts it closer to NATO countries and rewards its expansionist ambitions. Crushing Russia now is cheaper than punting to the future. Again, the European countries need to step up with resources. It is win-win for the US as it will benefit from European military spending and help in defeating a geopolitical enermy.
Doug
<<<<< they are more threatened by oil market disruption and possible terrorist retaliation than is the US<<<<<<
It is Europe that is already affected by oil market disruption and terrorist actions. A direct and immediate consequence of American actions that were not discussed with Europe. That's because America didn't consider Europe worth including in considerations regardless of the impact of those actions on Europe. It is likely that you agree with that American position but you can hardly expect the Europeans to agree.
Regardless, the Europeans will need to step up to resolve those two problems.
But not *regardless*. Europe doesn't accept your definition of their responsibility to do what you want them to do.
Your view is that they should act in America's interests no matter what the cost to Europe. Europe could just easily wonder why America doesn't act in Europe's interest in regards to the Gulf conflict. Virtually every American is happy to proclaim that America is largely unaffected directly by the outcome there, whatever it might be.
Europe is free to accept the risks of terrorism and energy supply disruption. I wouldn't expect either of those to be in Europe's interest.
America has already imposed the energy supply disruption on them. If America succeeds with its stated objectives Europe can expect to see thirty or forty million, maybe more, maybe a lot more, refugees show up on their border. Many of the refugees will plenty of attitude toward the west.
Which is why Europe will step up after it goes through the theatrics of not doing so.
Of course, there are these thoughts from President Eisenhower...
Key Details of Eisenhower's Views on NATO
1951 Ten-Year Goal: Shortly after taking command, Eisenhower expressed that if U.S. troops weren't returned within 10 years, the mission would be a failure.
Temporary Nature: He viewed NATO as a temporary, "stop-gap" measure to allow Western Europe time to rebuild its defense capabilities.
"Weaning" Europe: By the late 1950s, he grew frustrated that European allies weren't taking on enough of their own defense burdens.
Burden Sharing: In 1953, he warned that the "American well can run dry," emphasizing that European nations needed to take over to prevent an indefinite U.S. troop presence.
I don’t understand how Europe can deny the US access to their own bases and planes (even if not supporting the Iran war, which is their right), and yet still complain about the Strait of Hormuz being blocked. Uh, I think the US needs access to their planes and resources on the bases to even try to unblock the Strait.
I completely understand that Trump and his posts on X annoy you to no end (I can hear your eye roll from America when I read those posts online lol), but I do think there is a greater chance than ever before that he will try to re-negotiate NATO (as he did the Canadian/Mexican trade treaty) because it is quite lopsided (as I presented in an earlier post). I do think he intends to try and start a Teddy Roosevelt hemisphere strategy.
They're not really complaining about the Strait of Hormuz, it's treated like an act of god in most political discourse here. The prevailing belief is that only diplomatic/political paths can open it, the oil shortages are coming and they're going to last a while regardless of what anybody does, the silver lining is that it will encourage more RenEwaBlEs, etc.
Oil is down 10% from the March 19th high. But ask anyone in the street and they think oil is off the scale...because that's what the hysterical media is telling them.
look, nobody wants this to turn out fine more than me, but all signs are that we're going to be facing serious supply shortages in the coming months. we're already getting work-from-home advisories and the like, the big areas of concern in Europe are diesel and jet fuel right now.
Oh no! Trump is destroying one of the most evil, murdering, torturing exporters of deadly ideologies the world has seen in decades, close to getting nukes, which they won't hesitate to use and YOU are worried about working from home and having fuel shortages. For goodness sake have some self awareness and understand the misery that Iran has dished out in 47 years and exported - and WAS on track to massively increase. Sorry to use the Germany WW2 analogy but if Trump was around in 1936 when Hitler marched into the Rhineland, WW2 would have been stopped right there and then...as long as various moaners didn't stop him because 'loud bangs might upset my granny'. Six other Arab countries want the Iranian regime stopped, now. Jensen Huang, CEO of Nvidia, not a small business was 100% right (to the horror of the Trump hating chattering classes) when he said 'the world will be a better place when this job is done'.
wow. I'm responding to your reply that the price of oil is down. if you don't think price shocks and shortages matter, why bring them up then?
Where's the shock? Every US president has talked about taking on Iran. The Middle East has been in flames since October 7th 2023 attacks by Hamas, backed by Iran. Trump made it very clear he was going to act and we all watched the US taskforce heading to Iran in February, clearly not for a friendly chat. The price of oil is dropping right now, much to the disgust of the Trump hating media. This could be the shortest war with the most incredibly positive outcome for the Iranian people and the entire region. But maybe you preferred to gamble with the idea of a mushroom cloud and a million dead in Europe? The missile Iran fired on the Chagos Islands was about the same distance as Rome. Thanks to Trump, China has gone a bit cold on backing Iran. Who cares about some short term inconvenience?
You're right about all of that in the short run. In the longer run, a short sharp shock now might get some countries to reconsider the slide they've long been on with de-industrialization and the ratio of wealth-producing versus resource-depleting groups currently and prospectively residing in their territories. Which European countries want fertilizer and food and warmth and productive citizens more than green rainbow vibes? Which can wrench their ruling classes out of economically unsustainable policies before they pass a tipping point (that Germany may have already passed)?
Soft times make soft men; soft men make hard times. Hard times, we'll see.
I’m sure they will love the “renewables” angle, oof. That’s DOA. But surely opening the Strait should be the most pressing issue??? I mean industry in Germany is already struggling greatly, what will happen to car manufacturers, etc??Ah, those good ole’ diplomatic paths, hmmm more bureaucracy and little change…
Charlotte
<<<<<and yet still complain about the Strait of Hormuz being blocked. <<<<
It is America/Israel that is blocking the strait not Iran.
It is the western insurance companies that have withdrawn practical insurance coverage that is stopping the ships from moving. They have raised the cost and limitations on the available coverage in the region because their ships would be at risk. A risk initiated by America.
Ships can move through the strait without coverage by using Iranian protection (for a fee) Assorted countries request that protection and pay the fee for ships that are considered theirs or have cargo destined for them.
America does not provide that sort of protection to anyone nor are they likely to in the near future. Currently they are intent on continuing the war at a high tempo. They are deliberately focused on keeping the Gulf and Strait a high risk zone because it suits their interests but definitely not Europe's.
I saw a couple nights ago that President Trump bought insurance via Lloyd’s of London for every vessel on the Strait of Hormuz. The contract stated the USA was paying the full cost for all ships. Anyone else see that?
Oh, the irony. NATO was set up to keep us Americans in, the Russians out, and the Germans down (quote). Okay, good. So almost 50 years later, the two Germanys are united peacefully, the Soviet Union disintegrates peacefully, and releases its Eastern European vassal states. But the Americans were still in. So what happens? The Americans fund and foment yet another European war which kills one and a half million Ukrainians, taunts the Russians and incites the rest of the European states to start a war with Russia.
So NATO might as well dismantle since it did not accomplish its original mission, and its American wing has brought Europe to the brink of yet another round of massive carnage.
Not to mention the long prelude: the Balkan wars, the Colour Revolutions, etc.
Pretty much on anything now I don't doubt that you're correct.
Butt kisser. 😁
Me too though.
I've resigned myself to seeming like a slimy sycophant in the eyes of some of the assembled.
It's just remarkable to me. The handful of Substacks I pay my precious coin to, it's obvious I do so because I value their work enough to tighten my belt for, but this guy here, he's the only one I have never ever found anything to disagree with in his analyses or his opinions. Not once. I don't know how it's possible to be so sensible.
I feel the same. Should we start a fan club?
We ain't in one already?