Stephen needs a wider view of the war - and HE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE FACTS! Facts:
1. Trump, and Netanyahu, started a war they did not need to start.
2. The Trump Administration did not prepare adequately for this War, did not consult allies and did not try to get them on board - he even rebuffed help. He derided them, insulted them and even threatened to invade one of his allies.
3. The War has gone tits-up and Trump is desperate to extricate himself from the mess he got himself, is trying to palm it off to others.
4. The Europeans are looking at the situation and saying basically, 'You made this mess, you clean it up.' The Europeans see no upside in this conflict.
5. The US Navy - the most powerful navy in the world - refuses to force the straits. It would basically be a replay of the first phase of the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915 where the Anglo-French fleet tried and failed to force these straits under fire. Now Trump wants the Europeans to provide the cannon fodder.
6. The longer this situation continues the more desperate Trump becomes, the more accommodation the Europeans make with Iran.
The EU refusal to get involved is not damaging European security, but Trump's attack on Iran has.
The Euros are for once not behaving like idiots. As Pistorious said, for once making sense -- "It's not our war -- we didn't start it."
Your points 3 and 4 are the main ones. The war has gone tits-up in spectacular fashion. And it's even worse than we know -- information is being tightly controlled; we'll see the full extent of it pretty soon. The end of this will be ignoble in the extreme. The Euros have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by getting involved in this fiasco.
The short of it Iran had to be controlled whether now of later. There is no convenient time but saying that after June last year the present joint attack was timely. On can argue the pro & cons but from a Western european perspective their EU/Nato response has been for all intents & purposes high handed, disrespectful and uncoperative to say the least. Trump has taken offence and that's a bad place for pacifist Europe to face. They knew US did not have such ships yet, these newcommers having no experience in wars thought they would play an non commital not our war policy probably pandering to voters particularly in UK, France, Belgium & Nethelands. As Mr Bryen points out and considering the threat of Russia & allies has never been greater they play a very dangerous game. After all for a while they were aware Trump declaring the spending wasfar too low, the stocks of spares & ammuniting wonting, forces size & moral low. All very reminiscent of Europe in the 1930's detesting another war yet facing the prospect daily.
Living in SW Europe I am very fearful of the result while Trump remains President. I fear he may well withdraw from Nato overnight. I need not spell out the consequences initially perhaps only for Finland, Poland and possibly Germany who relied on Article for US to come to the rescue and not the likes of UK, Portugal or Spain !.
"The short of it Iran had to be controlled whether now of later. There is no convenient time but saying that after June last year the present joint attack was timely."
You call what is going on now Iran getting "controlled"? Really?! This is delusional.
We have swapped out an 80-something year old ayatollah who was the main obstacle to Iranian nukes for a 50-something one with no such religious scruples, and who has a father, a son, and a wife to avenge. The mullahs are in firmer control than ever. We are running out of PAC-3's and THAADs and there is no end in sight. An oil shock is about to give us a global financial crisis. The only way this war can end is for us to go begging. The risk of nuclear war in the region has just been increased by orders of magnitude. We are completely isolated with all of our allies, in the Gulf, and in Europe, up in arms against us. We are complete chumps of Netanyahu. Thanks, Donald! Someone wrote that Netanyahu waiting for 40 years to find a U.S. president stupid enough to walk into this one.
If you think our Iraq and Afghanistan wars were failures, you haven't seen anything yet. As bad as those were, this is a whole different level, a whole different universe of stupid.
They killed his mother, as well, and his sister's family including his 3yo niece. We are dealing with Israeli criminal logic embedded into US policy at the highest level. This didn't start well and will end even worse.
You are mistaken. It is Trump that plays the dangerous game. He is a Man-Child - easily manipulated by the Washington Liberals and Netanyahu. Poor planning, over confidence and hubris personify this operation. With friends like Trump Europe does not need enemies. Trump's war on Iran is anti-European, and even could be said to be anti-Western.
You speak of the danger that Europe faces from Russia - now they face an economic danger from Iran which multiplies the threats they face. At a time that Europe is purportedly building up, this could not come at a worse time.
Less you forget - the only time Article Five was triggered was when Europe came to the US's aid after 9/11. The US has over various presidencies squandered this, even more so in the Trump era.
The war is unpopular in Europe and especially unpopular in the US (about 20% support). How long before Trump is impeached - again, and could be the first President to be removed from office. What price the war then?
je ne comprend pas votre assertion sur la Russie doit faire face à un danger économique c'est plutôt le contraire , il a doublé ses prix d'exportation de pétrole , les USA ont levé les sanctions sur le pétrole et certains dirigeants d'Europe veulent reprendre contact pour un réacheminement de pétrole dans leur pays car pour l'Europe sans aucune réserve la situation est dramatique de plus le pétrole est d'abord vendu au plus offrant comme par exemple les pays d'Asie qui paie une prime de 20 % sur les prix et finalement l'Iran et la Russie sont partenaires.
The Europeans need the oil from the gulf way more than the US but expect the US to do all the heavy lifting. The reckoning cannot come too soon. Perhaps Ukraine and their willing European dupes will feel the first pain of no more US help? One can only hope.
As in the Bab el Mandeb operation last year, the Straits of Hormuz will be impossible to open without Iranian consent. That's why most countries are contacting the Iranians regarding safe passage. They have been told if the oil is settled in Yuan the tankers will be allowed to pass. Iran seems to have really thought this through.
But it was the U.S. that started the conflict that resulted in Europe's anticipated shortage. Trump did that knowing that Europe but not America would get blocked.
Why in the world should Europe come and rescue Trump so he can continue the conflict that is depriving Europe (and Asia) of crude, LNG, Fertilizer, Nitrogen, Sulphur, Aluminum, with follow on effects that would take half the page to enumerate.
There is no shortage of blather coming from all quarters. Bottom line is that the US has harmed its allies by actions that are consequential, blather aside. The benefits to the US of those actions must be measured against the consequences. Trump acts as though only he has agency.
The Euros are really dumb! The smart answer would have been to agree to send minesweepers to the general area, but not put them into Hormuz until Iranian firing had stopped. Instead, they said no -- playing right into the hands of President Trump who wants to step back from the Rest of the World and focus on the Western Hemisphere.
Russia is looking at the spinelessness of the Euros and contemplating its next steps in the war against the Ukraine -- a war in which the Euros through their own behavior have sacrificed any chance of US support. Of course, hollowing out NATO is another of President Trump's goals.
### 1. **L’argument de la « nécessité du soutien américain » est un chantage géopolitique**
L’article affirme que l’Europe doit accepter des compromis (comme l’envoi de dragueurs de mines) pour ne pas perdre le soutien des États-Unis face à la Russie.
**Réfutation :**
- Ce « soutien » est en réalité une épée de Damoclès : les États-Unis n’interviennent que lorsque leurs intérêts sont directement menacés. L’histoire récente le prouve (retrait d’Afghanistan, hésitations en Syrie, refus d’engager des troupes en Ukraine).
- Accepter des missions dangereuses (comme le détroit d’Ormuz) sans contrepartie stratégique, c’est servir de supplétif à une puissance qui, de surcroît, a délibérément saboté les intérêts européens (Nord Stream, sanctions extraterritoriales).
- La dépendance militaire vis-à-vis des USA a conduit l’Europe à négliger sa propre défense. En refusant ce marché, l’Europe se force à investir dans une autonomie stratégique, seule garantie de souveraineté à long terme.
### 2. **La menace russe est un épouvantail construit par l’OTAN**
L’article sous-entend que sans les USA, l’Europe serait vulnérable face à la Russie.
**Réfutation :**
- La Russie n’a ni la capacité ni l’intention d’envahir l’Europe. Sa démographie est en déclin, son économie est fragile (dépendance aux hydrocarbures, sanctions), et son armée, bien que redoutable localement, n’a pas la logistique pour une conquête continentale.
- Les interventions russes (Géorgie, Crimée, Donbass) visent à sécuriser ses frontières et à empêcher l’expansion de l’OTAN, non à conquérir l’Europe. La preuve : la Russie n’a jamais menacé un pays européen non membre de l’OTAN (Finlande, Suède avant leur adhésion).
- L’OTAN a systématiquement élargi son périmètre malgré les promesses faites à la Russie en 1990, créant une escalade auto-réalisatrice. Si l’Europe démilitarisait ses frontières et proposait un pacte de sécurité mutuelle, la tension retomberait.
### 3. **Le détroit d’Ormuz : une affaire américaine, pas européenne**
L’article suggère que l’Europe doit s’impliquer pour « stabiliser » la région.
**Réfutation :**
- Le détroit d’Ormuz est stratégique pour le pétrole mondial, mais les tensions actuelles sont le résultat direct de la politique unilatérale de Trump (sortie de l’accord nucléaire, assassinat de Soleimani). Pourquoi l’Europe devrait-elle payer les pots cassés d’une décision américaine ?
- En envoyant des dragueurs de mines, l’Europe légitimerait la stratégie de « pression maximale » de Washington et s’exposerait à des représailles iraniennes. Une position neutre et diplomatique (comme celle de la Suisse ou de la Chine) est plus sage et préserve les intérêts commerciaux européens.
- L’Europe a les moyens de sécuriser ses propres voies maritimes via des missions coordonnées (comme l’opération Atalante en Somalie) sans se subordonner au commandement américain.
### 4. **L’OTAN est un outil de domination américaine, pas une alliance défensive**
L’article pleure l’affaiblissement de l’OTAN.
**Réfutation :**
- L’OTAN sert avant tout à verrouiller l’Europe dans la sphère d’influence américaine. Les États-Unis imposent leurs normes, leurs équipements et leurs priorités stratégiques (ex : bouclier antimissile en Pologne, qui vise la Russie mais expose l’Europe).
- Un affaiblissement de l’OTAN est une chance pour l’Europe de construire une défense commune, indépendante, adaptée à ses propres défis (terrorisme, flux migratoires, cybersécurité) plutôt qu’aux fantasmes géopolitiques de Washington.
- La France, avec sa dissuasion nucléaire et son histoire diplomatique, a les capacités de lider un projet de défense européenne. L’Allemagne, malgré ses hésitations, commence à investir dans sa Bundeswehr. Le moment est venu.
### 5. **La Russie observe, mais elle observe aussi les faiblesses américaines**
L’article affirme que la Russie profite de la division pour avancer en Ukraine.
**Réfutation :**
- La Russie agit en Ukraine parce qu’elle perçoit l’OTAN comme une menace existentielle. Si l’Europe proclamait sa neutralité et garantissait que l’Ukraine n’entrera jamais dans l’OTAN, la base du conflit disparaîtrait.
- Les États-Unis, en poussant à l’élargissement de l’OTAN, ont provoqué la crise. Leur désengagement actuel est une opportunité pour l’Europe de mener une médiation directe avec Moscou, sans les arrière-pensées américaines.
- La Russie n’a pas intérêt à une guerre prolongée ; elle souffre des sanctions et veut des débouchés économiques. L’Europe, premier partenaire commercial de la Russie avant 2014, a les leviers pour négocier une paix durable.
### 6. **L’indépendance européenne est un impératif économique et moral**
L’article traite les Européens de « stupides » de ne pas suivre la voie américaine.
**Réfutation :**
- La dépendance vis-à-vis des USA a coûté cher à l’Europe : perte de compétitivité énergétique (achat de GNL américain plus cher), soumission aux sanctions extraterritoriales, alignement sur des guerres contraires à ses intérêts (Irak, Syrie).
- Une Europe souveraine pourrait développer des relations équilibrées avec la Russie, la Chine, et le Sud global, comme le font déjà des pays comme la Hongrie ou la Serbie, qui prospèrent malgré les pressions.
- Les valeurs démocratiques européennes sont trahies quand on suit aveuglément un président américain qui méprise l’UE et fait l’éloge de l’autocratie. Refuser les compromis humiliants, c’est défendre la dignité européenne.
### Conclusion : vous faites une analyse qui est un plaidoyer pour la vassalité
En conclusion, l’article que vous proposez repose sur un postulat erroné : que la sécurité européenne dépend des États-Unis. Or, cette dépendance est une construction politique qui a affaibli l’Europe et attisé les conflits. son refus de cet accord est non seulement légitime mais stratégiquement intelligent. L’Europe doit enfin grandir, assumer ses responsabilités et construire une paix fondée sur le dialogue et le respect mutuel, pas sur des alliances obsolètes.
Si vous souhaitez développer un point particulier ou ajouter des exemples concrets (comme le rôle de la France dans la crise libyenne, ou les déclarations de Trump sur l’OTAN), je suis à votre disposition.
If we had a real US Congress -- instead of the unrepresentative bunch of greedy self-promoters we have today -- a lot of US Navy former leaders would find themselves answering serious questions about how they made the decision to eliminate minesweeping capabilities. And maybe exchanging their comfy retirement seats on MIC Boards for jail cells.
If we had a real US Congress, they would have demanded that Trump appear and explain his reasons for this war prior to initiating hostilities, then they would have insisted on the Congress making the decision to take the American people into yet another war in West Asia.
But insofar as the Congress is concerned, the Constitution is something they use to wipe their collective A$$.
A serious question for everyone who has an opinion opposing this conflict. What do you think the Theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran would do if allowed to develop a nuclear weapon adaptable to their ballistic missiles? Use it as a Nuclear umbrella to continue their proxy wars? First strike attack against Israel a country they have vowed to destroy? Consider their behavior over the last 47 years and consider the potential for a suicide bomber mentality writ large on a country wide basis by striking first. Consider a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel leaving an area with 30% of the world's oil a smoking nuclear waste with millions dead. Show me proof that diplomacy has worked. I reconnize the abysmal record of US involvement in the middle east, but because a threat is not imminent doesn't mean it's not real, and by the time it is imminent it would be to late. If not now, then when. The days of isolationism as a National policy are long gone. Wrote about this in a recently posted substack.
That's an argument for taking away their nuclear program.
Even if I agreed with you, that's NOT an argument for doing the stupid thing we are doing now, which has not and will not change the regime (as our own intelligence services were saying even before the war), and which has not and will not end their nuclear program.
If we wanted to change the regime and end their nuclear program for good, we would have to put our economy on a war footing, slash social spending, raise taxes, send a million troops, and manufacture tens of thousands of body bags. And we are not willing to do that. There's not a snowball's chance in hell we're doing that.
Therefore, what are our options?
It's important to remember that Israel has been committed for 40 years to destroying and breaking up Iran into a failed state. It's true that the mullahs chant "Death to Israel" but it's not a one way street.
If there's a solution to this, it's most definitely not doing what we are doing now, which only increases the risk of nuclear war. It is the stupidest thing I've seen my country ever do in my not that short lifetime. It makes Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan look like campaigns of Clausewitzian genius.
During the most recent negotiations the Iranians agreed to dilute their enriched material and also to maintain zero enriched material. Technical details were to be worked out the following week. They were attacked the next day. The Iranian nuclear program is another WMD hoax. Trump renigging on the JPCOA proves this.
Dick, where exactly are these Iranian proxy wars? They have proxies but unless you define proxy war to include resisting an occupying force then I count zero. What have I missed? In 1973 the Islamic Republic didn't even exist.
Indeed, they were a week or two away from making a nuclear bomb! For 47 years, really? Trump tore up the JCPOA, the best chance to prevent them, with IAEA inspectors on the ground. The blunder of 1953 is history, why cloak it with rhetoric of theocracy and authoritarianism, while cozying up to the gulf arab monarchies and other Islamic republics in the region!
Why, If it is such an evil, radical and terrorist regime, why don't they figure in the top 5 terrorist organisations in official us intelligence reports!
We are in agreement. It amazes me that people with no military background and who also seem inept on world affairs seem to be the loudest in speaking their opinion. Seems to me that they would listen to someone with Col in front of their name. I have MSgt (retired) in front of mine and proud of the experience. Iran has been begging for this for 47 years. I'm thankful we have a President who is willing to act before it is too late. I only hope that we see the job through and not let politics drive our mission.
Ron. I did not say that at all. Please don't be cute by adding words that were not written. Nukes is part of the "begging for this for 47 years", among many other things, as I'm sure you're well aware.
<<<<<Please don't be cute by adding words that were not written<<<<<
<<<<< willing to act before it is too late<<<<
What else did you mean by "too late?"
Nukes have not been an issue for forty seven years. They are still not in existence and as recently as a few months ago, Iran's ability to even operate an enrichment program was obliterated. Even now in all the hysteria no one is saying that Iran actually has nukes and is no closer to them than they were years ago.
<<<<<<What do you think the Theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran would do if allowed to develop a nuclear weapon adaptable to their ballistic missiles?<<<<<
No reason to think they would do anything different than all the other countries that have deliverable nukes. (Including Israel)
And since we have been told for twenty years that Iran was just a week away from building a dozen or more nukes, what makes you think that they just now changed their mind?
Le précédent libyen : une leçon que l'Iran a parfaitement intégrée
mais mon analyse renvoie inévitablement au cas de la Libye. En 2003, Kadhafi a volontairement démantelé son programme nucléaire naissant en échange de promesses d'ouverture avec l'Occident. Résultat : en 2011, il a été livré à ses rebelles et assassiné, sans que personne ne lève le petit doigt. La leçon pour Téhéran est claire : renoncer à l'arme, c'est signer son arrêt de mort à moyen terme.
L'Iran a regardé ce qui est arrivé à l'Irak de Saddam (démantèlement forcé, puis invasion), à la Libye, et il voit aujourd'hui ce qui arrive à la Russie, pourtant puissance nucléaire, mais dont l'arme dissuasive limite l'engagement direct de l'OTAN. Sans l'arme, Poutine serait déjà militairement défait ou le pays serait dépecé.
La logique de la survie à long terme
"si ce n'est aujourd'hui, ce n'est que partie remise". C'est une vision stratégique à long terme. Les États-Unis changent de présidents, mais leur appareil militaro-industriel et leur alliance avec Israël sont des constantes. Aujourd'hui, l'administration Biden ou Trump peut être hésitante ou focalisée ailleurs (Chine, Europe). Mais dans dix ans, une administration plus belliqueuse peut décider que "le moment est venu" pour régler le compte de l'Iran.
Face à cela, la seule réponse rationnelle est de rendre le coût d'une telle entreprise prohibitif. L'arme nucléaire ne garantit pas l'immunité (la Russie subit sanctions et guerres par procuration), mais elle garantit qu'aucune puissance étrangère ne tentera d'invasion ou de décapitation du régime.
Le contrôle mutuel comme corollaire
Je suis partisan d'un contrôle mutuel. C'est essentiel, car une fois la dissuasion acquise, il faut la gérer pour éviter les accidents ou les escalades non voulues. Un Iran doté de l'arme, mais participant à un régime de transparence limitée et de lignes rouges communiquées avec ses voisins (y compris Israël, par canaux indirects), pourrait stabiliser la région.
C'est le modèle qui a fonctionné entre l'Inde et le Pakistan : deux pays en conflit ouvert, dotés du nucléaire, mais qui ont mis en place des mécanismes de communication et de non-franchissement de certaines lignes rouges. La guerre n'a pas disparu, mais elle est restée conventionnelle et limitée.
Si l'Iran acquiert l'arme, Israël perd son monopole nucléaire régional. Cela changera profondément l'équation stratégique. Israël devra reconnaître que l'option d'une frappe unilatérale (comme à Osirak en 1981 ou en Syrie en 2007) n'est plus viable. Cela pourrait paradoxalement forcer Israël à négocier, ou au contraire, le pousser à une frappe désespérée avant que l'Iran ne franchisse le seuil.
We read the exact same retort often in the UK's Daily Mail. Reading between the lines its the old trope telled by the masses for centuries "its the Jews fault" ! If only Hamas, Hezbollah & the Houthis had been "more understanding" towards Israel and the Jews more "responsive all would be well.. From a US perspective its not as if you have not "stolen" New Mexico, Texas or Puerto Rico for starters yet your clear fixation on the Jews shows your ignorance as a full time bigot
10/7 was a false flag. For years Israel made sure funding flowed to Hamas. This is well documented. Furthermore, Mossad and Shinbet had the blueprint for the attack at least a year in advance. They did nothing to disperse training in Gaza for the attack. And even as Hamas was gathering a small army at the Wall for a week, the IDF was ordered to vacate the point of attack leaving an easy security breach.
The false flag provided a cover to initiate a long desired Genocide for Land policy (Lebensraum + Final solution all in one)
Knesset members have been demanding an investigation based on the outline above.
"Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who has previously pledged not to cooperate with Kallner’s commission, accused Netanyahu of “running away” from responsibility for the failures of October 7.
“He is evading responsibility for the suitcases of dollars from Qatar,” which were for years transferred with Netanyahu’s approval to Hamas in Gaza, ostensibly to allow it to effectively govern. “He is fleeing from responsibility for the fact that the head of the Shin Bet warned him that Hamas was using the money to buy weapons, and he is fleeing from responsibility for the fact that the [IDF] chief of staff warned him weeks before the disaster that disaster was on the way; that the intelligence agencies warned him that a disaster was coming,” Lapid told the Knesset."
A few young Israeli women soldiers on duty in those kibbutz on the Gaza border were furious when their reports on the days preceding 10/7 on enemy activity on the other side were dismissed by the leadership. A large percentage of the Jewish casualties was later attributed to friendly fire, Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships firing indiscriminately at the buildings that had people from both sides. This was reported extensively in the Haaretz. Look up their Hannibal doctrine, the same played out in their hostage rescue farce!
Totally Ray. Spot on. 10/7 was a clumsy, obvious false flag attack designed to stampede the Israeli population into a genocidal frenzy and rationalize the genocide to the rest of the world.
If Trump would have explicitly warned the EU to NOT send ships they'd have send all the ships they have. Because modern politics is profoundly simple: if Trump says A we say B.
"The Europeans are deliberately withholding vital equipment needed to keep international shipping lanes open."
I seem to remember that Iran has some pretty sophisticated torpedo's. Would they not attack these ships with these torpedoes and simply blow them out of the water?
No -- Iran's navy is completely obliterated, just like their nuclear program was "completely obliterated" last summer. Just like their missile capability is completely gone, and they have no military at all anymore.
Obviously it's fairies which continue lobbing missiles and drones, and this time the nuclear program will REALLY be obliterated, promise! Maybe water sprites will launch the torpedoes. We're W I N N I N G!!
Stuck with the definition of an open water navy? Underwater drones, fast attack crafts in swarms, armed with anti-ship missiles, and submarines in shallow waters - hardly sounds like a proper navy, yes. But effectiveness in that theatre? Why did USS Abraham Lincoln battlegroup move away from there to standoff distance of over a thousand miles, and rendered ineffective? The northern coastline riddled with tunnels and caves that can launch drone swarms and anti-ship missiles. So close to shore, in such a narrow strait, that heavy artillery guns could do the job, or atleast saturate and distract. Mines are only one of many obstacles. Mine sweeper/hunter, amphibious troops landing craft, any enemy vessel would be taken out promptly.
I, like the other commentors, am very surprised at the negative tone in this post. I have found this substack to be excellent and very interesting, but this highly critical tone is way out of place here. Keep to the facts and omit the opinions!
Why, Stephen, are you gung-ho-ing Trump's outrageous lie-based entirely illegal invasion of Iran?
Yes he seems to be. And "The EU Policy is Damaging European Security" is worth a laugh or two. Isn't it US policy damaging European security?
Stephen needs a wider view of the war - and HE NEEDS TO RECOGNIZE FACTS! Facts:
1. Trump, and Netanyahu, started a war they did not need to start.
2. The Trump Administration did not prepare adequately for this War, did not consult allies and did not try to get them on board - he even rebuffed help. He derided them, insulted them and even threatened to invade one of his allies.
3. The War has gone tits-up and Trump is desperate to extricate himself from the mess he got himself, is trying to palm it off to others.
4. The Europeans are looking at the situation and saying basically, 'You made this mess, you clean it up.' The Europeans see no upside in this conflict.
5. The US Navy - the most powerful navy in the world - refuses to force the straits. It would basically be a replay of the first phase of the Dardanelles Campaign in 1915 where the Anglo-French fleet tried and failed to force these straits under fire. Now Trump wants the Europeans to provide the cannon fodder.
6. The longer this situation continues the more desperate Trump becomes, the more accommodation the Europeans make with Iran.
The EU refusal to get involved is not damaging European security, but Trump's attack on Iran has.
Exactly. Very good post.
The Euros are for once not behaving like idiots. As Pistorious said, for once making sense -- "It's not our war -- we didn't start it."
Your points 3 and 4 are the main ones. The war has gone tits-up in spectacular fashion. And it's even worse than we know -- information is being tightly controlled; we'll see the full extent of it pretty soon. The end of this will be ignoble in the extreme. The Euros have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by getting involved in this fiasco.
The short of it Iran had to be controlled whether now of later. There is no convenient time but saying that after June last year the present joint attack was timely. On can argue the pro & cons but from a Western european perspective their EU/Nato response has been for all intents & purposes high handed, disrespectful and uncoperative to say the least. Trump has taken offence and that's a bad place for pacifist Europe to face. They knew US did not have such ships yet, these newcommers having no experience in wars thought they would play an non commital not our war policy probably pandering to voters particularly in UK, France, Belgium & Nethelands. As Mr Bryen points out and considering the threat of Russia & allies has never been greater they play a very dangerous game. After all for a while they were aware Trump declaring the spending wasfar too low, the stocks of spares & ammuniting wonting, forces size & moral low. All very reminiscent of Europe in the 1930's detesting another war yet facing the prospect daily.
Living in SW Europe I am very fearful of the result while Trump remains President. I fear he may well withdraw from Nato overnight. I need not spell out the consequences initially perhaps only for Finland, Poland and possibly Germany who relied on Article for US to come to the rescue and not the likes of UK, Portugal or Spain !.
"The short of it Iran had to be controlled whether now of later. There is no convenient time but saying that after June last year the present joint attack was timely."
You call what is going on now Iran getting "controlled"? Really?! This is delusional.
We have swapped out an 80-something year old ayatollah who was the main obstacle to Iranian nukes for a 50-something one with no such religious scruples, and who has a father, a son, and a wife to avenge. The mullahs are in firmer control than ever. We are running out of PAC-3's and THAADs and there is no end in sight. An oil shock is about to give us a global financial crisis. The only way this war can end is for us to go begging. The risk of nuclear war in the region has just been increased by orders of magnitude. We are completely isolated with all of our allies, in the Gulf, and in Europe, up in arms against us. We are complete chumps of Netanyahu. Thanks, Donald! Someone wrote that Netanyahu waiting for 40 years to find a U.S. president stupid enough to walk into this one.
If you think our Iraq and Afghanistan wars were failures, you haven't seen anything yet. As bad as those were, this is a whole different level, a whole different universe of stupid.
They killed his mother, as well, and his sister's family including his 3yo niece. We are dealing with Israeli criminal logic embedded into US policy at the highest level. This didn't start well and will end even worse.
You are mistaken. It is Trump that plays the dangerous game. He is a Man-Child - easily manipulated by the Washington Liberals and Netanyahu. Poor planning, over confidence and hubris personify this operation. With friends like Trump Europe does not need enemies. Trump's war on Iran is anti-European, and even could be said to be anti-Western.
You speak of the danger that Europe faces from Russia - now they face an economic danger from Iran which multiplies the threats they face. At a time that Europe is purportedly building up, this could not come at a worse time.
Less you forget - the only time Article Five was triggered was when Europe came to the US's aid after 9/11. The US has over various presidencies squandered this, even more so in the Trump era.
The war is unpopular in Europe and especially unpopular in the US (about 20% support). How long before Trump is impeached - again, and could be the first President to be removed from office. What price the war then?
je ne comprend pas votre assertion sur la Russie doit faire face à un danger économique c'est plutôt le contraire , il a doublé ses prix d'exportation de pétrole , les USA ont levé les sanctions sur le pétrole et certains dirigeants d'Europe veulent reprendre contact pour un réacheminement de pétrole dans leur pays car pour l'Europe sans aucune réserve la situation est dramatique de plus le pétrole est d'abord vendu au plus offrant comme par exemple les pays d'Asie qui paie une prime de 20 % sur les prix et finalement l'Iran et la Russie sont partenaires.
It is troublesome enough to read the French without you making it worse by not using punctuation.
"for all intents & purposes high handed, disrespectful and uncoperative to say the least."
Surely you are taking about Trump?
The USN has no minesweepers, they need someone else's cos the LCS that they could alternatively use are very vulnerable to attack.
The Europeans need the oil from the gulf way more than the US but expect the US to do all the heavy lifting. The reckoning cannot come too soon. Perhaps Ukraine and their willing European dupes will feel the first pain of no more US help? One can only hope.
As in the Bab el Mandeb operation last year, the Straits of Hormuz will be impossible to open without Iranian consent. That's why most countries are contacting the Iranians regarding safe passage. They have been told if the oil is settled in Yuan the tankers will be allowed to pass. Iran seems to have really thought this through.
But it was the U.S. that started the conflict that resulted in Europe's anticipated shortage. Trump did that knowing that Europe but not America would get blocked.
Why in the world should Europe come and rescue Trump so he can continue the conflict that is depriving Europe (and Asia) of crude, LNG, Fertilizer, Nitrogen, Sulphur, Aluminum, with follow on effects that would take half the page to enumerate.
Five days apart.
Well didn't Trump just write verbatim "WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!" in that weird platform of his?
Whats the fuss about then?
Hasn't he already declared victory... 9 times!
The fuss is about their (lack of) commitment. He has forced their hand. I believe it to be intentional.
There is no shortage of blather coming from all quarters. Bottom line is that the US has harmed its allies by actions that are consequential, blather aside. The benefits to the US of those actions must be measured against the consequences. Trump acts as though only he has agency.
Is it so?
No. Israel is NOT part of the Western alliance. It is a cuckoo in the nest.
The Euros are really dumb! The smart answer would have been to agree to send minesweepers to the general area, but not put them into Hormuz until Iranian firing had stopped. Instead, they said no -- playing right into the hands of President Trump who wants to step back from the Rest of the World and focus on the Western Hemisphere.
Russia is looking at the spinelessness of the Euros and contemplating its next steps in the war against the Ukraine -- a war in which the Euros through their own behavior have sacrificed any chance of US support. Of course, hollowing out NATO is another of President Trump's goals.
### 1. **L’argument de la « nécessité du soutien américain » est un chantage géopolitique**
L’article affirme que l’Europe doit accepter des compromis (comme l’envoi de dragueurs de mines) pour ne pas perdre le soutien des États-Unis face à la Russie.
**Réfutation :**
- Ce « soutien » est en réalité une épée de Damoclès : les États-Unis n’interviennent que lorsque leurs intérêts sont directement menacés. L’histoire récente le prouve (retrait d’Afghanistan, hésitations en Syrie, refus d’engager des troupes en Ukraine).
- Accepter des missions dangereuses (comme le détroit d’Ormuz) sans contrepartie stratégique, c’est servir de supplétif à une puissance qui, de surcroît, a délibérément saboté les intérêts européens (Nord Stream, sanctions extraterritoriales).
- La dépendance militaire vis-à-vis des USA a conduit l’Europe à négliger sa propre défense. En refusant ce marché, l’Europe se force à investir dans une autonomie stratégique, seule garantie de souveraineté à long terme.
### 2. **La menace russe est un épouvantail construit par l’OTAN**
L’article sous-entend que sans les USA, l’Europe serait vulnérable face à la Russie.
**Réfutation :**
- La Russie n’a ni la capacité ni l’intention d’envahir l’Europe. Sa démographie est en déclin, son économie est fragile (dépendance aux hydrocarbures, sanctions), et son armée, bien que redoutable localement, n’a pas la logistique pour une conquête continentale.
- Les interventions russes (Géorgie, Crimée, Donbass) visent à sécuriser ses frontières et à empêcher l’expansion de l’OTAN, non à conquérir l’Europe. La preuve : la Russie n’a jamais menacé un pays européen non membre de l’OTAN (Finlande, Suède avant leur adhésion).
- L’OTAN a systématiquement élargi son périmètre malgré les promesses faites à la Russie en 1990, créant une escalade auto-réalisatrice. Si l’Europe démilitarisait ses frontières et proposait un pacte de sécurité mutuelle, la tension retomberait.
### 3. **Le détroit d’Ormuz : une affaire américaine, pas européenne**
L’article suggère que l’Europe doit s’impliquer pour « stabiliser » la région.
**Réfutation :**
- Le détroit d’Ormuz est stratégique pour le pétrole mondial, mais les tensions actuelles sont le résultat direct de la politique unilatérale de Trump (sortie de l’accord nucléaire, assassinat de Soleimani). Pourquoi l’Europe devrait-elle payer les pots cassés d’une décision américaine ?
- En envoyant des dragueurs de mines, l’Europe légitimerait la stratégie de « pression maximale » de Washington et s’exposerait à des représailles iraniennes. Une position neutre et diplomatique (comme celle de la Suisse ou de la Chine) est plus sage et préserve les intérêts commerciaux européens.
- L’Europe a les moyens de sécuriser ses propres voies maritimes via des missions coordonnées (comme l’opération Atalante en Somalie) sans se subordonner au commandement américain.
### 4. **L’OTAN est un outil de domination américaine, pas une alliance défensive**
L’article pleure l’affaiblissement de l’OTAN.
**Réfutation :**
- L’OTAN sert avant tout à verrouiller l’Europe dans la sphère d’influence américaine. Les États-Unis imposent leurs normes, leurs équipements et leurs priorités stratégiques (ex : bouclier antimissile en Pologne, qui vise la Russie mais expose l’Europe).
- Un affaiblissement de l’OTAN est une chance pour l’Europe de construire une défense commune, indépendante, adaptée à ses propres défis (terrorisme, flux migratoires, cybersécurité) plutôt qu’aux fantasmes géopolitiques de Washington.
- La France, avec sa dissuasion nucléaire et son histoire diplomatique, a les capacités de lider un projet de défense européenne. L’Allemagne, malgré ses hésitations, commence à investir dans sa Bundeswehr. Le moment est venu.
### 5. **La Russie observe, mais elle observe aussi les faiblesses américaines**
L’article affirme que la Russie profite de la division pour avancer en Ukraine.
**Réfutation :**
- La Russie agit en Ukraine parce qu’elle perçoit l’OTAN comme une menace existentielle. Si l’Europe proclamait sa neutralité et garantissait que l’Ukraine n’entrera jamais dans l’OTAN, la base du conflit disparaîtrait.
- Les États-Unis, en poussant à l’élargissement de l’OTAN, ont provoqué la crise. Leur désengagement actuel est une opportunité pour l’Europe de mener une médiation directe avec Moscou, sans les arrière-pensées américaines.
- La Russie n’a pas intérêt à une guerre prolongée ; elle souffre des sanctions et veut des débouchés économiques. L’Europe, premier partenaire commercial de la Russie avant 2014, a les leviers pour négocier une paix durable.
### 6. **L’indépendance européenne est un impératif économique et moral**
L’article traite les Européens de « stupides » de ne pas suivre la voie américaine.
**Réfutation :**
- La dépendance vis-à-vis des USA a coûté cher à l’Europe : perte de compétitivité énergétique (achat de GNL américain plus cher), soumission aux sanctions extraterritoriales, alignement sur des guerres contraires à ses intérêts (Irak, Syrie).
- Une Europe souveraine pourrait développer des relations équilibrées avec la Russie, la Chine, et le Sud global, comme le font déjà des pays comme la Hongrie ou la Serbie, qui prospèrent malgré les pressions.
- Les valeurs démocratiques européennes sont trahies quand on suit aveuglément un président américain qui méprise l’UE et fait l’éloge de l’autocratie. Refuser les compromis humiliants, c’est défendre la dignité européenne.
### Conclusion : vous faites une analyse qui est un plaidoyer pour la vassalité
En conclusion, l’article que vous proposez repose sur un postulat erroné : que la sécurité européenne dépend des États-Unis. Or, cette dépendance est une construction politique qui a affaibli l’Europe et attisé les conflits. son refus de cet accord est non seulement légitime mais stratégiquement intelligent. L’Europe doit enfin grandir, assumer ses responsabilités et construire une paix fondée sur le dialogue et le respect mutuel, pas sur des alliances obsolètes.
Si vous souhaitez développer un point particulier ou ajouter des exemples concrets (comme le rôle de la France dans la crise libyenne, ou les déclarations de Trump sur l’OTAN), je suis à votre disposition.
This is exactly correct. A strategic blunder on the part of the Euros.
"President Trump who wants to step back from the Rest of the World and focus on the Western Hemisphere."
He sure can talk the talk, but doesn't seem to be able to walk the walk.
If we had a real US Congress -- instead of the unrepresentative bunch of greedy self-promoters we have today -- a lot of US Navy former leaders would find themselves answering serious questions about how they made the decision to eliminate minesweeping capabilities. And maybe exchanging their comfy retirement seats on MIC Boards for jail cells.
If we had a real US Congress, they would have demanded that Trump appear and explain his reasons for this war prior to initiating hostilities, then they would have insisted on the Congress making the decision to take the American people into yet another war in West Asia.
But insofar as the Congress is concerned, the Constitution is something they use to wipe their collective A$$.
How soon everyone forgets Greenland. Though given how fast things spiraling these days it's forgivable.
You can't threaten and insult someone only to ask for help later, you don't think these beta males aren't savouring this moment?
A serious question for everyone who has an opinion opposing this conflict. What do you think the Theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran would do if allowed to develop a nuclear weapon adaptable to their ballistic missiles? Use it as a Nuclear umbrella to continue their proxy wars? First strike attack against Israel a country they have vowed to destroy? Consider their behavior over the last 47 years and consider the potential for a suicide bomber mentality writ large on a country wide basis by striking first. Consider a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel leaving an area with 30% of the world's oil a smoking nuclear waste with millions dead. Show me proof that diplomacy has worked. I reconnize the abysmal record of US involvement in the middle east, but because a threat is not imminent doesn't mean it's not real, and by the time it is imminent it would be to late. If not now, then when. The days of isolationism as a National policy are long gone. Wrote about this in a recently posted substack.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
That's an argument for taking away their nuclear program.
Even if I agreed with you, that's NOT an argument for doing the stupid thing we are doing now, which has not and will not change the regime (as our own intelligence services were saying even before the war), and which has not and will not end their nuclear program.
If we wanted to change the regime and end their nuclear program for good, we would have to put our economy on a war footing, slash social spending, raise taxes, send a million troops, and manufacture tens of thousands of body bags. And we are not willing to do that. There's not a snowball's chance in hell we're doing that.
Therefore, what are our options?
It's important to remember that Israel has been committed for 40 years to destroying and breaking up Iran into a failed state. It's true that the mullahs chant "Death to Israel" but it's not a one way street.
If there's a solution to this, it's most definitely not doing what we are doing now, which only increases the risk of nuclear war. It is the stupidest thing I've seen my country ever do in my not that short lifetime. It makes Vietnam and Iraq and Afghanistan look like campaigns of Clausewitzian genius.
During the most recent negotiations the Iranians agreed to dilute their enriched material and also to maintain zero enriched material. Technical details were to be worked out the following week. They were attacked the next day. The Iranian nuclear program is another WMD hoax. Trump renigging on the JPCOA proves this.
Dick, where exactly are these Iranian proxy wars? They have proxies but unless you define proxy war to include resisting an occupying force then I count zero. What have I missed? In 1973 the Islamic Republic didn't even exist.
Indeed, they were a week or two away from making a nuclear bomb! For 47 years, really? Trump tore up the JCPOA, the best chance to prevent them, with IAEA inspectors on the ground. The blunder of 1953 is history, why cloak it with rhetoric of theocracy and authoritarianism, while cozying up to the gulf arab monarchies and other Islamic republics in the region!
Why, If it is such an evil, radical and terrorist regime, why don't they figure in the top 5 terrorist organisations in official us intelligence reports!
Who can disagree with this well written clear comment.?. Yet even here there are some
We are in agreement. It amazes me that people with no military background and who also seem inept on world affairs seem to be the loudest in speaking their opinion. Seems to me that they would listen to someone with Col in front of their name. I have MSgt (retired) in front of mine and proud of the experience. Iran has been begging for this for 47 years. I'm thankful we have a President who is willing to act before it is too late. I only hope that we see the job through and not let politics drive our mission.
Dugz
<<<<<<Iran has been begging for this for 47 years. <<<<<
So it has nothing to do with nukes. Instead it is just ...you don't like them.
Ron. I did not say that at all. Please don't be cute by adding words that were not written. Nukes is part of the "begging for this for 47 years", among many other things, as I'm sure you're well aware.
Dugz
<<<<<Please don't be cute by adding words that were not written<<<<<
<<<<< willing to act before it is too late<<<<
What else did you mean by "too late?"
Nukes have not been an issue for forty seven years. They are still not in existence and as recently as a few months ago, Iran's ability to even operate an enrichment program was obliterated. Even now in all the hysteria no one is saying that Iran actually has nukes and is no closer to them than they were years ago.
Dick Minnis
<<<<<<What do you think the Theocratic Islamic Republic of Iran would do if allowed to develop a nuclear weapon adaptable to their ballistic missiles?<<<<<
No reason to think they would do anything different than all the other countries that have deliverable nukes. (Including Israel)
And since we have been told for twenty years that Iran was just a week away from building a dozen or more nukes, what makes you think that they just now changed their mind?
Le précédent libyen : une leçon que l'Iran a parfaitement intégrée
mais mon analyse renvoie inévitablement au cas de la Libye. En 2003, Kadhafi a volontairement démantelé son programme nucléaire naissant en échange de promesses d'ouverture avec l'Occident. Résultat : en 2011, il a été livré à ses rebelles et assassiné, sans que personne ne lève le petit doigt. La leçon pour Téhéran est claire : renoncer à l'arme, c'est signer son arrêt de mort à moyen terme.
L'Iran a regardé ce qui est arrivé à l'Irak de Saddam (démantèlement forcé, puis invasion), à la Libye, et il voit aujourd'hui ce qui arrive à la Russie, pourtant puissance nucléaire, mais dont l'arme dissuasive limite l'engagement direct de l'OTAN. Sans l'arme, Poutine serait déjà militairement défait ou le pays serait dépecé.
La logique de la survie à long terme
"si ce n'est aujourd'hui, ce n'est que partie remise". C'est une vision stratégique à long terme. Les États-Unis changent de présidents, mais leur appareil militaro-industriel et leur alliance avec Israël sont des constantes. Aujourd'hui, l'administration Biden ou Trump peut être hésitante ou focalisée ailleurs (Chine, Europe). Mais dans dix ans, une administration plus belliqueuse peut décider que "le moment est venu" pour régler le compte de l'Iran.
Face à cela, la seule réponse rationnelle est de rendre le coût d'une telle entreprise prohibitif. L'arme nucléaire ne garantit pas l'immunité (la Russie subit sanctions et guerres par procuration), mais elle garantit qu'aucune puissance étrangère ne tentera d'invasion ou de décapitation du régime.
Le contrôle mutuel comme corollaire
Je suis partisan d'un contrôle mutuel. C'est essentiel, car une fois la dissuasion acquise, il faut la gérer pour éviter les accidents ou les escalades non voulues. Un Iran doté de l'arme, mais participant à un régime de transparence limitée et de lignes rouges communiquées avec ses voisins (y compris Israël, par canaux indirects), pourrait stabiliser la région.
C'est le modèle qui a fonctionné entre l'Inde et le Pakistan : deux pays en conflit ouvert, dotés du nucléaire, mais qui ont mis en place des mécanismes de communication et de non-franchissement de certaines lignes rouges. La guerre n'a pas disparu, mais elle est restée conventionnelle et limitée.
Si l'Iran acquiert l'arme, Israël perd son monopole nucléaire régional. Cela changera profondément l'équation stratégique. Israël devra reconnaître que l'option d'une frappe unilatérale (comme à Osirak en 1981 ou en Syrie en 2007) n'est plus viable. Cela pourrait paradoxalement forcer Israël à négocier, ou au contraire, le pousser à une frappe désespérée avant que l'Iran ne franchisse le seuil.
I have an idea: How about the intrepid Israelis send their forces to mine sweep and lead a ground assault to open Hormuz?
Wait. Oh yeah. I forgot. The IDF is only good for targeting helpless civilians so Israel can steal their land.
We read the exact same retort often in the UK's Daily Mail. Reading between the lines its the old trope telled by the masses for centuries "its the Jews fault" ! If only Hamas, Hezbollah & the Houthis had been "more understanding" towards Israel and the Jews more "responsive all would be well.. From a US perspective its not as if you have not "stolen" New Mexico, Texas or Puerto Rico for starters yet your clear fixation on the Jews shows your ignorance as a full time bigot
10/7 was a false flag. For years Israel made sure funding flowed to Hamas. This is well documented. Furthermore, Mossad and Shinbet had the blueprint for the attack at least a year in advance. They did nothing to disperse training in Gaza for the attack. And even as Hamas was gathering a small army at the Wall for a week, the IDF was ordered to vacate the point of attack leaving an easy security breach.
The false flag provided a cover to initiate a long desired Genocide for Land policy (Lebensraum + Final solution all in one)
Knesset members have been demanding an investigation based on the outline above.
"Opposition Leader Yair Lapid, who has previously pledged not to cooperate with Kallner’s commission, accused Netanyahu of “running away” from responsibility for the failures of October 7.
“He is evading responsibility for the suitcases of dollars from Qatar,” which were for years transferred with Netanyahu’s approval to Hamas in Gaza, ostensibly to allow it to effectively govern. “He is fleeing from responsibility for the fact that the head of the Shin Bet warned him that Hamas was using the money to buy weapons, and he is fleeing from responsibility for the fact that the [IDF] chief of staff warned him weeks before the disaster that disaster was on the way; that the intelligence agencies warned him that a disaster was coming,” Lapid told the Knesset."
Times Of Israel,24Dec 2025
A few young Israeli women soldiers on duty in those kibbutz on the Gaza border were furious when their reports on the days preceding 10/7 on enemy activity on the other side were dismissed by the leadership. A large percentage of the Jewish casualties was later attributed to friendly fire, Israeli tanks and helicopter gunships firing indiscriminately at the buildings that had people from both sides. This was reported extensively in the Haaretz. Look up their Hannibal doctrine, the same played out in their hostage rescue farce!
Totally Ray. Spot on. 10/7 was a clumsy, obvious false flag attack designed to stampede the Israeli population into a genocidal frenzy and rationalize the genocide to the rest of the world.
If Trump would have explicitly warned the EU to NOT send ships they'd have send all the ships they have. Because modern politics is profoundly simple: if Trump says A we say B.
Fear not, Ursula is monitoring the situation very closely.
"The Europeans are deliberately withholding vital equipment needed to keep international shipping lanes open."
I seem to remember that Iran has some pretty sophisticated torpedo's. Would they not attack these ships with these torpedoes and simply blow them out of the water?
Sure .. you guys take care of bombing the civilians and factories from the distance and call EU to remove mines. Seriously?
Does Iran have a navy anymore capable of that?
Torpedo launchers are rather small and can be used from very small vessels. Iran recently showed some video of having these boats in storage.
No -- Iran's navy is completely obliterated, just like their nuclear program was "completely obliterated" last summer. Just like their missile capability is completely gone, and they have no military at all anymore.
Obviously it's fairies which continue lobbing missiles and drones, and this time the nuclear program will REALLY be obliterated, promise! Maybe water sprites will launch the torpedoes. We're W I N N I N G!!
Stuck with the definition of an open water navy? Underwater drones, fast attack crafts in swarms, armed with anti-ship missiles, and submarines in shallow waters - hardly sounds like a proper navy, yes. But effectiveness in that theatre? Why did USS Abraham Lincoln battlegroup move away from there to standoff distance of over a thousand miles, and rendered ineffective? The northern coastline riddled with tunnels and caves that can launch drone swarms and anti-ship missiles. So close to shore, in such a narrow strait, that heavy artillery guns could do the job, or atleast saturate and distract. Mines are only one of many obstacles. Mine sweeper/hunter, amphibious troops landing craft, any enemy vessel would be taken out promptly.
Did someone mention Gallipoli?
I, like the other commentors, am very surprised at the negative tone in this post. I have found this substack to be excellent and very interesting, but this highly critical tone is way out of place here. Keep to the facts and omit the opinions!
The Europeans will be allowed to transit the straight if they abide by Iran’s requirements.
Why wouldn’t they just do that.
Trump is reaping what he sowed - like all fools do.