NATO v. Iran

Trump’s war on Iran does not involve NATO, yet another major difference to the Iraq War (or Lybia later). American war-power & European weakness are therefore on display everyday. This tends to weaken NATO, an institution falling apart before our eyes. Diplomacy, therefore, now must come to mean something else than coordination & summit mechanisms that prepare public opinion which is then to be formed by propaganda. Trump has so far made his best effort to restore the three principles of diplomacy, one’s own principles, one’s interests, & agreements between rulers. A much more personal, as well as much more democratic, international order could follow from his success.

A week into the war, we can compare the reactions of American allies then & now. Let’s start with the leaders of the nuclear powers in NATO/Europe. First, Emmanuel Macron, nominally in charge of the only military force worth mentioning in Europe.

Now let us speak frankly. Does anyone care what Macron thinks? Does he have influence in the EU? NATO? UN Security Council? He's got one more year in which to be a bother, then he's term limited. He can't govern his own country or win legislative elections. He has achieved nothing in foreign affairs & it is too late to begin now. In a vague, indirect way, he says America must stop its war on Iran. What does he propose to do about it?

Next, British PM Keir Starmer, who went so far as to record a four-minute video looking confused & perhaps scared, which is typical of him & should not be taken to mean anything about the problem at hand. Starmer refused American use of British airbases; then later allowed it; & is now held in contempt by partisans on both sides of the issue. This is another catastrophic showing in Europe. Like Macron, Starmer has no future—snap elections in a year will end his career, is my guess—& he advertises even more weakness than Macron. Starmer claims Iran indulges in acts of war on British soil & that the best he can do is whine a little & promise to do nothing in return! Moreover, Starmer says "communities" in Britain are worried: In plain English, he's afraid of his Muslim voters. Utterly contemptible.

Next, Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission. Of course, she should shut up. She is in no position to speak about foreign affairs.

This is the emptiest of all statements, except perhaps for the irritating allusions, i.e. “fully respecting international law.” Most atrocities since 1945 have been committed somehow under that banner.

The EU bureaucrat supposed to deal with foreign affairs has made a much better statement. Unfortunately, it’s a woman who used to be the Estonian PM, a very tiny country, so she has no political influence to speak of:

Finally, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz declared that, unlike his European peers, he has no interest in lecturing Trump.

He has also since gone to D.C. to have a meeting with Trump before the press, the only leader to do so. The meeting went well. Of course, this also means nothing in military terms; it may mean nothing in diplomatic terms, too.

The surprise is Canadian PM Mark Carney, in many ways one of the horror of globalization, just as surely as the others. But read this statement, which is much more closer to good sense & principle than any other, & is openly supportive of America:

Nor did this lead to any Canadian involvement or support.

Perhaps as big a surprise so far as media, elite institutions, & propaganda are concerned was Spain, whose incredibly corrupt PM, Pedro Sanchez—who runs the country even though he lost the last elections, since he made a coalition with separatist movements trying to tear Spain apart, & is now illegally turning half-a-million third-world illegal immigrants into legitimate Spaniards with a view to the next elections!—has become the most public opponent of the American war. He started by denying the right to use military airbases in Spain. (The bases are American, but Spain has to approve use for such war operations.) He moved on to a bigger quarrel, in which he has EU support. Trump threatened economic consequences against Spain. We’ll see if anything comes of it.

A week later, some improvements have arrived as war compelled answers. Europe is no better able to arrive at any kind of foreign policy, European leaders have no way to make themselves look less weak or irrelevant—they talk about international law. All in all, it’s a contemptible spectacle. The worst part happened over the weekend: A British base in Cyprus was attacked by a Hezbollah drone on behalf of Iran; the British could not prevent the strike or deal with it afterward by moving ships into the Mediterranean to Cyprus, because the British fleet is fake & because the dock workers are unionized & wouldn’t work on the weekend or overtime. A humiliation before all the world. Worse, PM Starmer has been personally humiliated because of his vacillation.

France has done better in moving into the Mediterranean, including its nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, with its carrier group—a total of twelve ships. In a way, this may even be intended to help America: A third American carrier is now moving from the Eastern Mediterranean to the coast of Arabia. The uniquely bizarre aspect of Macron’s performance, on the other hand, is an operatic statement about his love for Lebanon, which he must defend, from Hezbollah as much as from Israel! One must read it to believe it.

What most leaders in the EU have done—Macron more than the others—is to make statements, for example on X, about their conversations with rulers in the Near & Middle East about the Iran War. Aside from the ridiculous character & the bad taste of such press releases, the stark contrast between words & deeds is such that it will further discredit European elites both domestically &, especially, worldwide. The major work the European governments are doing is trying to pull out their citizens from the Gulf monarchies, which are daily bombed by Iran. This is very understandable, but it is retreat rather than anything else; it may not augur well for commercial relations, either.

The one major development regarding war is Macron’s plan to turn France into the nuclear protector of Europe, which involves agreements with various European countries. We’ll see if any of this happens—it could be a major shift toward defense, but it probably will be nothing. There’s very little Macron himself can do, since he oversees a crippled economy, a weak governing coalition that depends on socialist support, & has only one year left to serve as president; nor do other European leaders or parties like him—he has neither authority nor influence to use. Perhaps it’s up to his successor.

So far, events suggest the following thoughts. NATO is again weakening. Trump did not bother to build an alliance or even warn European powers of his plans. Such a shocking act implies obvious judgments on his part of their worth. On their own European leaders are only too aware that they have very little force with which to make even a show… They are doing almost nothing—some ships have been sent to Cyprus, as have some British weapons systems, by air.

Europe is therefore in no great position to deal with what Trump is doing to world energy prices & any number of other matters. Trump will also outlast most of these leaders. America will act alongside allies that pursue their interests with arms, most obviously Israel. As a prototype, this suggests that future American allies will all be rather more armed & bellicose. One thinks of Japan; as well as of Latin American countries. But not of European countries. For my part, I continue to be persuaded that Trump will win his war. Perhaps the campaign will be over in a month. Should that be so, the military & industrial implications of the conflict will begin to dawn on people.