« Mid-Morning Art Thread | Main | Stephen Colbert's Election Interference Stunt/Hoax Works as the Democrat Establishment Fights Dirty to Block a Proud Black Woman from Attaining Higher Office »

Wednesday Morning Rant

With Friends Like These

It is no secret to anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention over the past fifty years that the primary purpose of international organizations is to interfere with and obstruct any action taken by the United States that could arguably be in its own interest. If the US acts as if its own interest is irrelevant - or even better, acts against its own interests - then the much-vaunted "international community" is usually indifferent or even sometimes supportive - so long as a check is involved. The moment the US has the audacity to act in its own interests, however, the wailing and gnashing of teeth can be heard the world over.

Putative ally or declared enemy, the behavior is fairly consistent. There is a reason Trump and Rubio withdrew the US from dozens of international organizations earlier this year. It was a long time coming. For far too long, the "international community" has taken for granted its right to bite the hand that feeds it and then complain if a check doesn't come. So it goes with international organizations, and this sadly does not extend merely to the irrelevant ones.

With the recent actions against Iran, our allies in Europe are demonstrating yet again that this same attitude extends to military affairs. Even before the recent action, cracks have been forming in the postwar order of European military alliances. The UK's moves involving the strategically-important Diego Garcia are just the most recent source of pre-Iran tension. With the strikes on Iran, however, the existing tensions and conflicts within the NATO alliance are becoming more apparent.

Arguably the most important NATO allies of France, Germany and the United Kingdom have not followed some of their fellow allies in flatly refusing any involvement, but they are also making it clear that they are not interested. All three issued a joint statement that:

We will take steps to defend our interests and those of our allies in the region, potentially through enabling necessary and proportionate defensive action to destroy Iran's capability to fire missiles and drones at their source. We have agreed to work together with the US and allies in the region on this matter.

There are plenty of constraints in that statement, but it as at least not outright refusal. Outside of the official statements, these same countries are publicly furious. The French foreign minister, for example:

Referring to Israel and the United States' initial assault on Iran on Saturday, he said their "unilateral strikes" could have gained the legitimacy needed only by going before the U.N. Security Council.

So they say they'll aid with defense, but simultaneously call the action "illegitimate." Germany's foreign minister, despite the joint statement, has asserted that Germany will not get involved militarily.

None have gone so far as Turkey or Spain. Turkey - a NATO member - is firmly opposed to the strikes in their entirety, with Erdogan saying

In his strongest opposition ⁠yet to the attacks, Erdogan said they were a "clear violation of ​international law".
"As their neighbour and brother, we share the pain of the ​Iranian people," he said at a Ramadan fast-breaking dinner in Ankara, and added that the U.S.-Iran dispute had grown into war after provocations from Israel.

Hardly the talk of an ally. But it could be worse. It could be Spain. Spain has gone so far as to forbid the United States to use its joint bases in Spain for anything to do with action against Iran. Spain's foreign minister has asserted that any US use of those joint bases is subordinate to the UN or "international support:"

"I want to be very clear and very plain," he told Telecinco. "The bases are not being used -- nor will they be used -- for anything that is not in the agreement [with the US], nor for anything that isn't covered by the UN charter."

The defence minister, Margarita Robles, was similarly emphatic, saying neither of the bases had been used in the US military operation. "There is a deal with the US over these bases, but our understanding of the deal is that operations have to comply with international legal frameworks and that there has to be international support for them," she told reporters.

These are not the words or actions of an ally, which is almost certainly why Trump has ordered Bessent to begin trade retaliation.

Unenthusiastic allies are one thing, but allies that publicly denounce US actions and refuse any possibility of participation, or that obstruct military operations from joint bases are entirely another. I don't know what needs to happen with NATO, but it will not surprise me if significant changes follow the resolution - one way or another - of the ongoing action against Iran.