Subject: Re: Starmer chooses his side: Iran
Well, one of the consequences of forcing Europe to be stronger on their own is that they have more leeway to say "no" to us on things.

This has zilch to do with "making Europe stronger", because they're...not. This is all about Kier Starmer not wanting Trump to whack the Mullahs once and for all. Barack Obama could have intervened in a similar manner during term when there were massive amounts of unrest...but chose to send them money instead.

This is a problem with the left - it is wholly unwilling to take decisive action against Iran.

MI5 recently said they stopped ~20 Iranian plots inside the UK. You'd think that Starmer and Labour would be more keen to defend their own country and let us do the heavy lifting...but nope. They're not.

The only question is, why?

We get the benefit of spending less on military support for Europe. But the cost of that benefit is that we don't get to be quite as influential in Europe. Turning a loyal supplicant into a militarily strong competitor doesn't seem like it's the most beneficial thing for the U.S. to do....but there you are.

Again, no. Europe as a whole is a joke in terms of its ability to defend itself. This has zero to do with us asking them to be able to stand on their own and everything to do with Trump telling Starmer his deal for the Chagos Islands is a horrible idea. Which it is. Unquestionably.

I expect this won't be the last time that we start running into our erstwhile allies saying "no" to us more often. The less dependent they are on us, the less they have to cooperate with us when their own interests - or their own domestic politics - point them in the other direction.

You're reaching here. The Europeans don't want to play that game.