Forum Topic

Trump Might Pull Out Of NATO

Donald Trump has told The Telegraph he is strongly considering pulling the United States out of Nato after it failed to join his war on Iran.The US president labelled the alliance a “paper tiger” as he said removing America from the defence treaty was now “beyond reconsideration”.It is the strongest sign yet that the White House no longer regards Europe as a reliable defence partner following the rejection of Mr Trump’s demand that allies send warships to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.Mr Trump was asked if he would reconsider the US’s membership of the alliance after the conflict. “Oh yes, I would say [it’s] beyond reconsideration,” he replied. “I was never swayed by Nato. I always knew they were a paper tiger, and Putin knows that too, by the way.”Nato partners have been reluctant to help reopen the strait, through which 20 per cent of the world’s oil typically travels. Tehran has effectively closed the strait for weeks, sending global oil and gas prices spiralling while threatening a global recession.“We’ve been there automatically, including Ukraine. Ukraine wasn’t our problem. It was a test, and we were there for them, and we would always have been there for them. They weren’t there for us.”Singling out the UK, the US president rebuked Sir Keir Starmer for refusing to get involved in the American-Israeli war against Iran, suggesting the Royal Navy was not up for the task.“You don’t even have a navy. You’re too old and had aircraft carriers that didn’t work,” he said, referring to the state of Britain’s fleet of warships.Asked if the Prime Minister should spend more on defence, Mr Trump added: “I’m not going to tell him what to do. He can do whatever he wants. It doesn’t matter. All Starmer wants is costly windmills that are driving your energy prices through the roof”

Sue Hammond ● 21d28 Comments

If Ukraine felt they could trust Putin to stick to a peace deal they might just consider giving up the rest of Donbas to him, but the mood out there is nowhere near accepting they should do that or that it bring more than a temporary respite.  I support Ukraine's right to an independent future of their own choosing.What they need is US support, but that presupposes that the US recognises it is in America's interests to hold Russia at bay.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

My understanding is Ukraine is trying to target Russian military assets or those installations supporting them nit civilians, and didn't initiate the conflict.Russia, the USA, and Iran have instigated, either directly or via proxies, military action and don't seem to be too concerned about civilian casualties (Trump's words, bombing them into the store age?). Israel does have a reason to take proportionate defence against terrorist groups but should minimise civilian casualties. As Trump has now apparently said Iranian uranium isn't an issue, it might be open to debate whether Iran is still a legitimate target - I'm not a lawyer. The EU, UK, Australia, Canada, etc didn't create this mess. Perhaps they/we should insist on payment if we are expected to resolve it. There seem to be 40+ countries who probably think the US and Iran should sort it out?Trump's government's belligerent to Greenland/Denmark, Canada, invasion of Venezuela, etc and its masked ICE agents picking up illegal immigrants and putting them in what are effectively concentration camps, and hassling non white US citizens show faciat tendencies (remember Musk's Nazi salute?) ... an indicator Trump wouldn't support a democratic EU or NATO? Perhaps Putin has told him to leave Iran as well as NATO?To be honest, I've no idea where this is going, let's hope Artemis II doesn't come back to a Planet of the Apes final scene ...I really hope I'm wrong about some of the potential scenarios ...And now Trump has sacked his Attorney General!

Michael Ixer ● 19d

My point is that nobody is going to bomb Iran out of its murderous intentions, as is already clear. However, containing their ambitions by limiting them militarily can provide some relief.The EU is relatively weak and divided compared to America but I suggest that are changing now most of the countries realise they can no longer rely on an isolationist America - and an antipathy that may survive Trump even if his desired far right governments in France, Germany and elsewhere take power one day.One of the biggest concerns for Ukraine is the continuing sympathy Trump shows for Putin, even as Putin supplies Iran with weapons and intelligence that are being used against US assets.  I simply don't get that.Who are our real adversaries here?  Russia and China.  Who are America's real adversaries?  The same two countries.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

There is no easy solution, Jonathan. But I have a question for you. Would you be happy with a negotiated settlement to the war in Ukraine which left Russia in possession of the Donbas?

Steven Rose ● 19d

"The biggest bridge in Iran comes tumbling down, never to be used again — Much more to follow! IT IS TIME FOR IRAN TO MAKE A DEAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE, AND THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OF WHAT STILL COULD BECOME A GREAT COUNTRY!"Well that's odd isn't it, because all week Trump has been telling us that Iran is begging to make a deal?He just spouts absolute nonsense all day long.

Michael Brigo ● 19d

Jonathan you say “ I realise this regime and its proxies remain a mortal danger to Israel but they have been significantly degraded, militarily at least, which might give Israelis some degree of relief.“.I don’t think so while Iran is still committed to wiping Israel off the map.  Nobody would expects that Ukraine would just tolerate Russian bombing.The main players Russia, China, Iran and the USA are looking at the EU countries who cannot commit to anything worthwhile to solve or support this situation.  The EU need a backbone which they don’t have which is why Starmer wants to hide back in there.We are in a new era and the EU have only just realised.

Robert Wheeler ● 19d

Steven, frankly there is no alternative. Trump and Netanyahu may desire regime change but can’t make it happen. So bombing isn’t working, a ground invasion highly unlikely to a) happen and b) succeed. Look at Gaza. 70,000 dead, bombed to smithereens and Hamas still in control and refusing to disarm. Negotiation and containment is still the only way out of the current impasse. It’s a horrible regime but how exactly can we get rid of it?  We will just have to live it, hope to contain it and hope some sort of workable deal can be constructed that takes us back to something like the situation before the bombing started. I realise this regime and its proxies remain a mortal danger to Israel but they have been significantly degraded, militarily at least, which might give Israelis some degree of relief. I dare say you won’t agree but do please suggest a better way forward if you can think of one.

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/trump-iran-uranium-nuclear-weapon-war-b2950575.html

Michael Ixer ● 19d

Jonathan, If a negotiated settlement means allowing the current vicious regime to remain power while it continues to stockpile enriched uranium and arm Hezbollah and Hamas, then no.

Steven Rose ● 19d

Now Trump says he doesn't care about Iran's uranium. I'm confused,  who's lying? What's the war about? Why are Iranian civilians being killed? Is the energy crisis deliberate, the real reason?

Michael Ixer ● 19d

Yes, playing devil's advocate; what is in America's interest? Is driving Europe closer together in the US interest? Is upsetting neighbours: Canada, Mexico, Greenland, etc productive? Do US tech companies appreciate the drive for European digital sovereignty because of US policies? (OK, not easy by some EU governments are serious about digital sovereignty: France & Germany.)

Michael Ixer ● 19d

I don’t think it’s as simple as that. Trump was elected on an America First pledge. He can’t or won’t accept that a stable and prosperous Europe is very much in US interests, but he does represent a strong isolationist tendency in the US. Hence we need to hedge our bets and in geopolitical terms the only alternative for us is a closer relationship with Europe. Of the many disasters of the last decade Brexit has caused a rift between us and the rest of the continent. I’m not saying we should rejoin the EU but Starmer is right on this - we can no longer depend on America so we have to rebuild relationships across the Channel. I’m not sure there is an alternative. As for the conflict in the Gulf, the USA and Israel started it, without consulting any of their so-called friends and allies, and seem disappointed that they don’t want to be part of the ensuing chaos. Of course they are directly affected by the closure of the Straits of Hormuz and the damage done to oil and gas facilities on both sides of the Gulf, so they will get drawn in. Hopefully just to participating in a negotiated solution rather than military action against Iran. Again, what is the alternative?

Jonathan Callaway ● 19d

It occurred to me having watched NASA's amazing and successful Artemis II launch yesterday evening - that's what really makes America great - that although driven by the US, President Trump shouldn't forget the dependency on international cooperation to achieve this. The US Deep Space communications network hs ground stations in Cornwall, Madrid, Australia ... it often uses ESA and other space agency resoutces and NASA's head of science, Nicolas Fox, comes from the UK and was educated at Imperial College ... best not to upset one's friends? Still, scientist probably are as vindictive as politicians!

Michael Ixer ● 19d

China may have provided arms ...https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/china-military-airlift-iran-y20-israel-escalation/

Michael Ixer ● 20d

They dont have to hold it indefinitely, they just have to hold it long enough to cause extreme pain - which is exactly what they are threatening to do.Russia is providing them with drones btw, zero cost.

Michael Brigo ● 20d

Starmer is becoming more and delusional in his leadership.  We need a leader with a backbone.Iran can’t hold the straight of Hormuz as eventually they will have no money for weapons so they will just have to open it.  Everything is destroyed.All this nonsense about who actually “won” the war is pathetic and childish.There are no winners in war.

Robert Wheeler ● 20d

"this talk of surrender is silly."Are you sure? Let's look at it.The straights of Hormuz were open before this misadventure started, now the are closed. The US has repeatedly threatened to use force to open them but has not because Iran has told it that if it does it will destroy every bit of oil infrastructure it can hit in the area - thereby finishing off the world economy. Iran is still proving daily that it is capable of launching missiles - not necessarily very effective but they only need a few to get through to push oil prices even higher.The US has not achieved regime change, they have replaced one guy with his even more hardline son - The Iranians release videos and statements every mocking Trump.Every couple of days the US says "the Iranians are begging for a deal" and every day the Iranians say "no we haven't we are going to keep fighting"If the enemy in the war you started can economically hold the world to ransom, after you have 'won' the war and you decide to take your toys home - you lost that war.

Michael Brigo ● 20d

How can we re open the straight of Hormous when we are incaoable of halting a daily invasion of our shores by small boats?

Andy Pike ● 20d

Really, Michael B, this talk of surrender is silly. The Americans have destroyed the Iranian fleet and the Iranian airforce and killed hundreds of the vicious IRG murderers. I expect they will find or destroy  the hundreds of kilos of nearly weapons grade uranium which the regime has stockpiled. I don't think that can be classed as a defeat. Unfortunately the Americans may not be able to effect regime change before they leave, a prospect which you seem to welcome. But what I find most disturbing is the naivety with which some contributors to the Forum have greeted the rupture in relations between America and Nato. Who is going to defend Europe, who is going to defend Britain, if the Americans aren't there? Starmertalks about safeguarding Britain's national interests. He hasn't understood that the most important safeguard is keeping the Americans inside.

Steven Rose ● 20d

I guess someone has to step up now the US has surrendered?

Michael Brigo ● 20d

Britain is to host 35-nation talks aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic, it was revealed today, hours after Donald Trump told them to 'go get their own oil'.Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper will host a meeting of international leaders tomorrow to 'assess all viable diplomatic and political measures' to reopen the vital waterway, Keir Starmer said this morning.  Another embryo coalition?  What could this one be called I wonder?🤔  Coalition Of The Clueless is my suggestion.A very handy distraction for Starmer who is probably sighing with relief that the Mandelson and McSweeney ‘lost’ phone scandal has gone quiet.  For now anyway.

Sue Hammond ● 20d

The interconnection are getting confusing. Trumps has seemingly supported Russia in its territorial demands from Ukraine, and constrained arms deliveries to Ukraine. Russia has benefited from the Iranian conflict from rising oil prices.Trump is comfortable with Russia breaking his oil embargo of Cuba.Russia is alleged to be supplying Iran with drones and intelligence of US assets in the middle east. There's also reports of large cargo planes from China arriving in Iran - possibly arms shipments?At the same time Zelensky is visiting middle eastern countries doing military deals for drone technology.I guess there's some level of "wait and see" ... perhaps an ideal scenario for chaos theory analysis?

Michael Ixer ● 20d

This is what l find peculiar on the war crimes thread.  To a one everyone is totally ignoring our own safety with regard to relying just on NATO which is what we appear to have done.  Unless leaders flip one way or the other l fear we will all end up under Russian rule.Ukraine won’t be the only countries invaded.

Robert Wheeler ● 20d

Sue. Yes, that's the question, what is happening? Trump seems to be changing his mind all the time and Iran had proved a more robust opponent than Venezuela was. I'm hoping that there are a number of behind the scenes conversations in progress; we know Pakistan are acting in a liaison role, and Turkey may also be involved.Military action to secure the Straight of Hormuz could well be successful but the after effects if oil installation, desalination plants, etc are destroyed and damages could leave lasting effects for a decade or so.Let's hope "boring" equates to "sensible & considered"?It's being posed by President Trump others' problems but he knows the pump prices in the US will be a problem for him in the mid terms. I also suspect his friends in Saudi, the UAE, etc are expressing their displeasure at the drone and missile attacks they're suffering? Still at least he doesn't have to answer Epstein questions at the moment and Andrew's brother will be visiting him soon ...

Michael Ixer ● 20d

@MII doubt it will happen.  America has always been the most important player in NATO because of its political influence and its military strength.  Now that Trump has stepped back what is NATO actually doing to try and get Hormuz open again, and which country is heading up the operation?  I have no idea, does anyone?Starmer was pontificating about it this morning during his dull🥱press briefing and said it was his priority in order to get fuel prices down but didn’t say how he would do it.  He is going to hold another summit.  Oh good that’ll frighten Iran’s current dictators and they will capitulate immediately, especially if the ‘Coalition Of The Willing’ get involved.🙄

Sue Hammond ● 20d

Perhaps he'll renew the idea about the US joining the Commonwealth when Charles visits later this month? https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-suggests-us-could-join-british-commonwealth-offered-king-charles

Michael Ixer ● 20d

As I predicted, Trump getting ready to unconditionally surrender to Iran lol

Michael Brigo ● 21d

I guess the USA would then lose access to all the European managed air and naval bases around the world? I  think it would need to be approved by Congress. 

Michael Ixer ● 21d