Informative analysis from the Institute for the Study of War

So after refusing to ask for any help from our allies he has now reversed. course and is begging/demanding that they contribute to a naval force that will escort tankers through the Strait of Hormuz. Not surprisingly, our allies are saying, 'No way."
From the Times: "As President Trump’s war with Iran enters its third week, European leaders are caught between his bellicose demands for help in reopening the Strait of Hormuz and their deep reluctance to be drawn into a war of America’s choosing.

Several leaders reacted with alarm and apprehension on Monday to Mr. Trump’s criticism of their lack of action, with some explicitly rejecting his call to send their navies into harm’s way even as the U.S. and Israeli-led war continues to drive up the price of global energy.

Officials bristled at Mr. Trump’s warning in an interview on Sunday that “it will be very bad for the future of NATO” if European nations do not join the United States in its effort to reopen the vital waterway to tankers carrying oil, gas and fertilizer. On Saturday, he had suggested in a post on social media that “many Countries, especially those who are affected by Iran’s attempted closure of the Hormuz Strait, will be sending War Ships.”

But officials in Europe are saying the opposite.

“This is not our war; we did not start it,” Boris Pistorius, Germany’s defense minister, said Monday morning. He said Germany wants diplomatic solutions and “sending more warships to the region will likely not help achieve that.”

The French foreign ministry posted on social media that its navy was staying in the eastern Mediterranean: “Posture has not changed: defensive it is.”

Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain vowed at a news conference on Monday that his country “will not be drawn into the wider war” with Iran.

“My leadership is about standing firm for the British interest, no matter the pressure,” Mr. Starmer said without specifically referencing the president’s comments. He added that British officials were working with “all of our allies, including our European partners” on what could be done collectively to reopen the Strait.

The economic pressures on European officials are real, with prices for gasoline and heating oil already spiking and voters expressing dismay about the effect on their pocketbooks.

But so is the sense of déjà vu. Leaders in Europe and around the world remember the last time an American president called on allies to assemble forces in the Middle East. In many parts of Europe the 2003 invasion of Iraq is seen as a costly mistake, driven by faulty intelligence at the insistence of former President George W. Bush.

In the current conflict the risks are once again enormous. Do nothing and stand by as prices surge, potentially ruining the chances for economic growth and sowing anger among people who are struggling to make ends meet. Or join the fight and face the possibility of military losses that trigger an even deeper engagement with Iran and its terror proxies."

So will Trump now use this as an excuse to wreck NATO? Putin is, no doubt, cheering him on,

-- Modified on 3/16/2026 12:30:25 PM

Oil prices are down this morning, and the stock market is up.  The only panic you are going to see in the coming months is from the Dems who realize everything they were planning on running on in the midterms is dissolving, little by little.  

I just caught his news conference at the Trump-Kennedy Center board meeting. He didn’t sound like he was panicking.

The Europeans do seem dead set against defending ships passing though the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe Japan and Korea will join?

You must be pretty desperate to base your opinion on a single morning's price.  Not to mention it's pretty self-serving considering it's one of the very few times over the past few weeks that the price has gone down. As for your predictions of the future, it sounds more like wishful thinking.

of trying to assess where things are going based on the CURRENT status of the war.  With all due respect, Mr. Little, it doesn't matter if it's one day, a week, a month, or six months.  When the mission has been completed, if the prices have not come down significantly, THEN you should warn us the "sky is falling."  For the sake of debate, thank you for taking the bait.

And your statement about how there's really no difference "if it's one day, a week, a month, or six months" is ridiculous on its face.
Oh, and again nice dodge on your attempt to make us believe you "meant" your statement only as bait.

This is exactly what I would have said if you had baited me like this.  

END OF MESSAGE

ChicKie would be expected to label anything from Al Jazeera as Muslim propaganda so this is pretty funny.

On Monday Trump made the claim he spoke with one of the former presidents, who told him, “I wish I did it,” referring to the military strike on Iran. However, aides to Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden said they had not spoken with Trump nor endorsed his actions. So, presumably, Trump 2.0 talked with Trump 1.0 .

The longer this war goes… the more the Iranians will realize why Americans call Trump TACO…😂..He’s gonna leave all those Iranian protesters who were looking for regime change hanging  
Seems like the Iranian Regime to putting back the pieces back together

Interesting perspective, but nothing in the HuffPost piece rebuts the points made in the Al Jazeera piece.

Al Jazeera lie about this?  From all accounts (or even just counting the diminishing missile strikes coming out of Iran) this appears by all observable standards to be the truth.  What is your evidence it is false?  Do you think two dead Supreme Leaders are setting a trap for the US, and just pretending their ability to fight back is being degraded at an alarming rate?  

I never said I had evidence that what Al Jazeera wrote is false. Please show the class where I said or implied that.  I simply pointed out the irony in Chickie citing them as a source. In fact, I have generally found Al Jazeera to be pretty fact-based.

Prices go up/down almost on a daily basis with OIL.     Some brokers stoke fear and sell or don't buy... all to manipulate the prices.   PLUS use anything political as "reasoning".    

 
Like I have always stated is that in the middle east if someone FARTS they will jack up oil prices.    

 
Now with the "war" (hasn't been declared yet)     Trump asking for help is kind of a "reverse".   But it is also showing the world how the USA has been the back bone of NATO.    To be honest if NATO wanted to gain the "trust" of the US/Trump again.... they should have jumped at the chance to help.   Otherwise it is proving TRUMP right all along.    NATO used the USA to do everything.

This whining about how NATO never helps the US and takes a free ride defies history. Only ONE nation has used Rule 5 to ask for help against and attacker and that's the US after 9/11. And NATO stepped up and provided troops who fought and died in  Afghanistan. In fact, "All 30 NATO member nations, along with various partner nations, contributed troops to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan between 2001 and 2014, and later the Resolute Support Mission. Major contributors included the US, UK, Canada, Germany, France, Italy, Denmark, and Turkey, with many Allies sustaining significant casualties."

Correct about 9/11.

 
how many "boots on the ground" compared to USA resources with Afghanistan?   USA had almost HALF of the troops.   They had or supplied over 50% of the resources, intel, etc.     For fuck sakes.... we went over this in the past.   especially with casualties.... when you send 100 people over and in one mission they get attacked and you lose 50.... that is a high percentage.    

 
Contributors.... can be anything from boots on the ground to....just intelligence, some special forces, having naval ships in the area for back up, having a landing strip used or "base" used for operation jump off points, having planes fly over for assistance/back up if things are needed, etc.      

 
YET you ignore the fact that the US paid the most per dollar for NATO operations.    That has been Trumps whole point.   Hence NATO should just step up or offer help.   Especially when it is a "world supply" of oil they are worrying about.   Which Iran is possibly attacking, stopping the distribution of, etc.    A WORLD PROBLEM when they are attacking trade for the world.   NON MILLITARY TARGETS .... this is where NATO needs to step up and make statements/threats about joining the fight.  

You really are the lowest of the low.

I think the Al Jazeera writer’s analysis was pretty spot on.  Seems that some folks here don’t like to hear perspectives that envision a positive outcome for the United States in this effort.

Their desire to see Trump fail is so strong, they can’t even acknowledge that what they read was true. The most wr can expect is a weak denial about what they never said. Typical liberals.

Please return your GED.

A concise summary of the old man’s contributions to this discussion:
1st reply:

2nd reply: 3rd reply:

-- Modified on 3/17/2026 10:16:36 PM

Based on this thread, your deficit in reading comprehension is simply too vast.
The amount of help you need is profound.

CKS175 displays his total ignorance of the Middle East.  He can only see that Al Jazeera's perspective is "positive" for the United States.  He has no clue that Al Jazeera's perspective is more "negative" towards Iran than it is "positive" towards America.  Why?

 
Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar.
Qatar is a Sunni Muslim country; Iran is Shia.
Iran attacked Qatar with missiles and drones.

 
Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

BigPapasan thinks he scored a point by pointing out Al Jazeera is funded by Qatar. Here’s the problem. Everything BigPapasan knows about Al Jazeera he learned from Wikipedia. I on the other hand gathered my knowledge and awareness of Al Jazeera when I was a subscriber to the publication while I worked, lived and raised my family in the Middle East.  

I’ve forgotten more about the Middle East than BigFootInMouth will ever know.