Trumps attack on Iran - 2026 edition

[blup]

Says a lot when Irann is more credible than Trumpf. Maybe he thinks his base will have forgotten about it all when the midterms come around

 

[SPLINE]

The British military has been cut down in size to absolutely stupid levels....

We chose to have a welfare state and NHS rather than defence. Now we pay millions handsomely to do nothing.

 

[MNW67]

We chose to have a welfare state and NHS rather than defence. Now we pay millions handsomely to do nothing.

There is a bigger picture, though. After the Cold War, the US had a deliberate strategy of encouraging Europe to be less powerful militarily. It's very complex.

 

[motorbiking]

How did it do that?

 

[charliegolf]

How did it do that?

First, by acknowledging that Europe didn't have a military-industrial monster with a very voracious appetite at the centres of national economies, unlike the US. They then used that to be the 'big dawg'- bases where they wanted them and military control of NATO whenever a spat cropped up. Third, monopolising arms sales to European countries other than France. Well done France.

 

[Munroast]

Says a lot when Irann is more credible than Trumpf. Maybe he thinks his base will have forgotten about it all when the midterms come around

it's a shocking state of affairs when I believe the Iranian gov over the president of the USA - just shameful the way our once great friend and ally is going

 

[fillyboy]

Bit more on the 'talks' although it doesn't make it any less confusing.

Donald Trump pitches shared US-Iran control over Strait of Hormuz | The Jerusalem Post

Iranian Parliament speaker Mohammad-Bagher Ghalibaf is leading the talks with the United States, a source told The Jerusalem Post.

www.jpost.com

 

[MNW67]

How did it do that?

Too complex to write it all out myself. Here is an overview:

Following the Cold War, U.S. defense policy implicitly and often explicitly encouraged European nations to maintain smaller, specialized militaries, creating a "security umbrella" that discouraged, rather than encouraged, the development of large-scale, independent European power projection forces.

This strategy aimed to maintain U.S. leadership within NATO, prevent the emergence of new European rivals, and avoid "duplication" of capabilities, ultimately creating a heavy reliance on American military support.


Key Aspects of Post-Cold War U.S. Policy:

• NATO Centrality and "No Duplication": U.S. administrations (both Democratic and Republican) consistently opposed independent European Union (EU) defense efforts, arguing they would "duplicate" NATO and make the alliance obsolete.
• Preventing New Rivals: A 1992 U.S. strategy draft aimed to "prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO," viewing large independent European military capabilities as a potential threat to U.S. leadership.
• Encouraging Specialization: The U.S. encouraged European countries to shift from large territorial defense armies to smaller, specialized forces that could complement American power, rather than replicate it.
• The "American Umbrella": By providing nuclear and conventional security guarantees, the U.S. reduced the immediate pressure on European nations to spend heavily on defense, resulting in a voluntary "demilitarization".
  

Consequences of the Strategy:

• Dependence: Europe became heavily reliant on the US for key military assets, such as strategic airlifting, reconnaissance, and intelligence, a gap that became painfully obvious in conflicts like the 1999 Kosovo intervention.
• Decreased Capabilities: Post-Cold War, European defense budgets were cut, and, despite US pressure for higher spending, European nations maintained low threat perceptions and prioritized social spending.

This reliance has been challenged in recent years by U.S. demands for higher contributions within NATO, a trend that continues into 2026, including US Congressional approval of security assistance to Baltic nations despite earlier efforts to reduce European presence

 

[Brigadier]

Bit more on the 'talks' although it doesn't make it any less confusing.

It's just market manipulation, in plain sight.

Stocks soaring, crude plummeting.

Those with advance knowledge will have made big.

 

[fillyboy]

It's just market manipulation, in plain sight.

Stocks soaring, crude plummeting.

Those with advance knowledge will have made big.

Possibly, but really, has there ever been an action by any govt, anywhere in the world, where this hasn't been the case.

 

[Brigadier]

Possibly, but really, has there ever been an action by any govt, anywhere in the world, where this hasn't been the case.

Yes.

 

[motorbiking]

To be fair driving oil prices down, is better than using taxes to subsidise heating oil.

 

[Koolpc]

Iran have always been lying murderous terrorists. They deny the deaths of tens of thousands during the protests for a start...

 

[blup]

If Trumpf chickens out but not Isreal what motive does Irann have to talk

 

[Highway Man]

Too complex to write it all out myself. Here is an overview:

Following the Cold War, U.S. defense policy implicitly and often explicitly encouraged European nations to maintain smaller, specialized militaries, creating a "security umbrella" that discouraged, rather than encouraged, the development of large-scale, independent European power projection forces.

This strategy aimed to maintain U.S. leadership within NATO, prevent the emergence of new European rivals, and avoid "duplication" of capabilities, ultimately creating a heavy reliance on American military support.


Key Aspects of Post-Cold War U.S. Policy:

• NATO Centrality and "No Duplication": U.S. administrations (both Democratic and Republican) consistently opposed independent European Union (EU) defense efforts, arguing they would "duplicate" NATO and make the alliance obsolete.
• Preventing New Rivals: A 1992 U.S. strategy draft aimed to "prevent the emergence of European-only security arrangements which would undermine NATO," viewing large independent European military capabilities as a potential threat to U.S. leadership.
• Encouraging Specialization: The U.S. encouraged European countries to shift from large territorial defense armies to smaller, specialized forces that could complement American power, rather than replicate it.
• The "American Umbrella": By providing nuclear and conventional security guarantees, the U.S. reduced the immediate pressure on European nations to spend heavily on defense, resulting in a voluntary "demilitarization".

Consequences of the Strategy:

• Dependence: Europe became heavily reliant on the US for key military assets, such as strategic airlifting, reconnaissance, and intelligence, a gap that became painfully obvious in conflicts like the 1999 Kosovo intervention.
• Decreased Capabilities: Post-Cold War, European defense budgets were cut, and, despite US pressure for higher spending, European nations maintained low threat perceptions and prioritized social spending.

This reliance has been challenged in recent years by U.S. demands for higher contributions within NATO, a trend that continues into 2026, including US Congressional approval of security assistance to Baltic nations despite earlier efforts to reduce European presence

They didn't say, make your fighting regiments redundant, they didnt say don't invest any more money into your equipment and let it drop to bits, they encouraged making specialised units to compliment what we already had which would compliment the USA forces. Whenever we did NATO manouvers we always looked like the poor relatives compared to other NATO armys. It is crazy the way our defence spending took a turn, it wasn't through the USA telling us not to.