I always wonder if he is trolling or he lives in a reality that is a lot different from mine. If you consider the world is just a great chess game and win/lost have not real consequence to you, then I can see when some people is coming from. There are always way to win more for yourself and the cost of losing/wrong is not paid by you anyways.
A lot of global politics
is a game of chess -- or better, a game of Risk. Alliances change based on what's expedient. "Nations have no permanent friends or enemies, only permanent interests" is the first thing you learn in a policy program. The US used to be allied with Russia against Germany, not anymore. Europe used to be
really concerned about human rights in China that conveniently justified restricting trade, and now that doesn't come up so much anymore because there's a need for trade agreements.
So yes, I think there's a lot of strategic deliberation happening right now as assets are being moved into the Middle East. The DoD is thinking about how Iran would retaliate, and that's why there's air defense systems getting flown in from European bases. And they're thinking about what kind of scale the attack should be: targeting just leadership in precision strikes, or going for shock and awe. That's all going to involve deliberation with other countries, and whatever they say publicly isn't what happens behind closed doors.
European dependence on the USA was the greatest coup in foreign policy of the 20th century, and until his second term, it was seen across Europe as a bit of an annoyance and a minor indignity, not a fundamental flaw. Now? Well, I'd phrase it as a 90 year legacy up in smoke
European dependence on the US was a huge boost for European countries, which collected a peace dividend: they cut defense budget and could use that money to pay for social programs. Now, they need to start investing in defense, too, and shoulder some of that NATO responsibility. That has long been the stated objective of the US, and Trump made it happen by creating uncertainty.
But that stuff in Davos, it represents a long term political break between the US and all our former allies. They have decided that we are a problem and that will have serious long term effects. Hell, that stuff in Davos even has an effect on Iran. After all, it means that Europe are former allies, so the Supreme Leader doesn't have to worry about a coordinated response.
UK backs American strikes on Iran to stop nuclear programme
Sir Keir Starmer has signalled British support for a US strike on Iran, saying he backs President Trump’s goal of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.
France also just changed its position and is now supporting declaring IRGC a terrorist organization (
see here)
I don't see any sign that the EU is not supporting the US here. What have you seen that differs? Nobody was expecting Danish fighter jets to strike positions in Iran.
I miss when or politics were sane enough that people trying to do that occasionally had a leg to stand on and occasionally made a good point or two.
There's probably a reason nearly everyone who would make an opposing argument has left the forum, and the remaining ones log on to 10+ responses and have to ask themselves how much time they want to spend arguing. In the ICE thread, people are acting as if federal agents are running around executing people, which is what's happening in Iran but not in the United States (pretty big difference). So yes, language has gotten more extreme and viewpoints have become more extreme (the "mainstream media" are now right-wing corporate shills). And anything that is anti-Trump is believed or celebrated, even when it's the IRGC. It's mindblowing to me that the devastating crackdown in Iran attracted basically no interest on this board until it's about Trump considering a strike, and then some people seriously seem to think this is about the Epstein files or Minneapolis.
