Iran War?

[The Brain]

What does NATO have to do with the Straits?

[Syt]

Well, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

What does NATO have to do with the Straits?

"Any alliance whose purpose is not the intention to wage war is senseless and useless."

I think the Dorito in Chief has adopted that as one of his maxims in international relations.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Never expected a rerun of the delic-attic league unraveling in my lifetime

[Norgy]

What does NATO have to do with the Straits?

If you squint or know nothing about geography, the straits are right in the north Atlantic.

[crazy canuck]

NATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.

NATO countries should decline due to the ongoing threat to Greenland from a foreign power.

Indeed

Yep, not sure why NATO should help a belligerent nation who has threatened to attack a NATO nation and annex another.

[Grey Fox]

And just as a callback, this was THREE MONTHS AGO:

https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/international/americas/artc-i-brought-peace-to-the-middle-east-trump-boasts-achievements-in-white-house-address

"I brought peace to the Middle East," Trump boasts achievements in White House address

"We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."

U.S. President Donald Trump delivered an address of approximately twenty minutes to the nation on Thursday evening, reviewing what he described as the key achievements of his administration as the first anniversary of his election approaches.

Speaking primarily to an American audience, Trump outlined upcoming policy measures and announced that he would soon appoint a new Federal Reserve chair who supports lowering interest rates.

The president addressed the war in Gaza in notably blunt terms, declaring: "I have ended eight wars in ten months, eliminated the Iranian nuclear threat, ended the war in Gaza, and, for the first time in 3,000 years, brought peace to the Middle East."

Trump went on to highlight what he portrayed as major domestic successes, saying: "Tonight, after eleven months, our border is secure, inflation has been stopped, wages have gone up, prices have gone down, our nation is strong, America is respected, and our country is back. We are on the brink of an economic prosperity the world has never seen."

He also sharply criticized previous administrations, stating: "For too long, the vast majority of good and honest Americans have been forced to watch corrupt politicians loot government institutions, exploit taxpayers, and dismantle the systems that make a civilized society possible. That era is over. We are putting America first."

The King gaveth, the King taketh.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

The king, occasionally, loseth his head. Though in this case the king might become smarter if that were to happen

[Richard Hakluyt]

Well, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.

 

[Norgy]

Well, Trump is in Dire Straits, so he's calling on his Brothers in Arms.

POTM 

Next time, add a pun too.

[Jacob]

The NYT article Jimmy linked does suggest a US objective that has a logic to it - namely controlling Iran's oil as a means to put pressure on China. The article makes the point that if the US control both Iranian and Venezuelan oil exports, they have access to a lever to choke the Chinese economy.

I could see that being one of the arguments made by the paint-the-map contingent inside Trump's orbit.

With a Chinese lens this could be a real problem, which implies to me that China has a strong interest in supporting Iran for at least two reasons:

1) To avoid the US having that leverage over the Chinese economy via controlling the sources of their oil imports, and
2) To bleed the US as much on possible, much like Russia is bleeding in Ukraine

From a Russian perspective, increasing the value of their oil and gas exports is obviously pretty good, though the weakening of an ally is less good.

I'm also very interested in understanding the impact in Europe - both in the short (or however long) term of the fighting, but also in the event of Trump's cronies gaining control of Iranian oil production.

I also wonder - if Trump's playbook is "grab control of the oil", are there any fairly obvious "next plays" after Iran (whether it succeeds or fails}?

One thing seems pretty clear, though - the American oil capitalists who bankrolled Trump is getting a pretty good return on investment.

[Norgy]

There are always more plays for a real estate magnate wanting more to sell.

Norway, for instance. Azerbaijan. Kuwait. But most importantly Brazil. His old friend Bolsonaro is suffering during house arrest. Get Brazil, and you have a jackpot. Country divided between Bolsonaristas and the ones who supported Lula. The highest rate of conversions to Evangelical faiths in the world. Also: Hot chicks, but yucky brown colour.

Old US ally? No matter. Who cares anymore.

[viper37]

In the US and Canada, wild pigs are a plague in some parts.

Battues aux sangliers ? Viande de choix. 

Nos ancêtres les Gaulois sont bien vivants

[viper37]

Let's get some enjoyment out of this tragedy.

My score 14 nukes, 21k casulties.
https://nuke-canal.vercel.app/

"Iran blocked the Strait. Very bad, very unfair. Gas is nine dollars. I called MBS - he's not picking up. I called Modi - "please hold." Nobody helps us. So I said to my generals, I said, 'what if we just nuked a canal through the UAE? Boom, boom, boom - new waterway.' They said 'sir, that's insane.' I said 'you're fired.' The new guy loves it. It's gonna be beautiful. Biggest canal ever built. We're gonna do it in an afternoon." - Presidential address ot the nation, 3 hours ago.

Objective: Carve a navigable waterway from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Oman. Choose your ordnance wisely.

SecWar Memo: "For the love of God, try to avoid Dubai. And the airports. You know what, just try not to kill too many people."

You laugh, but Newt Gingrich very seriously suggested this on Twitter.

[viper37]

It'll be interesting how this NATO thing plays out.

Personally I don't have much appetite for supporting the US here, and I don't think the national moods of most NATO countries would reward politicians sending troops to fight Iran.

I'd expect mostly polite "sorry we'd love to, but it's just not possible" for the sake of diplomacy.

It's hard not seeing this being another giant step down the road to the dissolution of NATO, however. Trump was never going to support a NATO country being attacked anyhow, but if no one helps him with this idiotic war then it'll likely become explicit even sooner.

Is this moving some of the "we're not THAT motivated to build a strong European defense people a countries" a bit, I wonder?

Well, if Iran attacks the US now, NATO is not obliged to answer article 5 a as the US is the aggressor and is engaged in a conflict.

What is stressful is that Iran is launching ballistic missiles toward Turkish territory that have been, so far, intercepted.

If one of them lands and Turkey activates Articles 5, we'll all likely responds against Iran.  Russia and China are both openly and actively supporting Iran. I doubt they'll stop.