Bulagan

Most Europeans have no idea how absolutely furious with Europe America is. This is not just another disagreement. Betrayal is not something you just let slide. And the mouthy responses from Europeans are pouring gas on that fire. They have misjudged the situation gravely & it will have grave consequences for Europe— economically AND militarily.

From Martin Iles, reposted: Having lived in the USA for nearly two years, I've realised something. The USA and the remainder of the Western world are no longer aligned. We all laugh and mock when the Americans say, "Freedom!" because we truly think we're as free as they are. Wrong. We're not. Not even close. The laws, the mindset, and the behaviour, is totally different in this regard. Most of all, the governments are totally different. The USA's convictions around core freedoms are on a scale we do not share. Meanwhile, Donald Trump wins the popular vote, the electoral college, the House, and the Senate... a man who, in every other Western country, is held in open derision, if not contempt. For these and other reasons, we are not the same. Yet the West, including Australia, fully expect to rely on the USA for our very survival. If the world turns bad (which will happen - only a question of time), then the whole West, without America, is toast. So, you may ask - if we're not very aligned ideologically, then it must be that we bring something to the party militarily? Well, no... actually... we don't matter that much militarily. The USA has about 470 ships in its navy, including 11 aircraft carriers, 69 submarines, 75 destroyers... plus 110 new ships in the pipeline. Australia has about 30, including 3 destroyers, 7 frigates and 7 outdated submarines. The UK does a little better, with about 60. Meanwhile, the US has over 14,000 military aircraft. A staggering number. Australia has 252 military aircraft. The UK has 556. The US army has just shy of 1,000,000 uniformed personnel in its military. Australia has about 45,000. The USA spends 3.4% ($968 billion) of its GDP on defence. Australia spends 2% ($36.4 billion). The US spends as much as the next 15 largest military-spending countries (including China) combined. The USA has a fighting culture. The men shoot things (a lot) and hunt things, the veterans get favoured in everything from parking spots to boarding planes. A uniformed young man is thanked in the street a dozen times a day. "Oh, the Americans and their guns!" we say, in our smug way. Yes, they have a warrior culture. We do not. We don't have to, because we're a leech on theirs. How many young British men are willing to fight for their country? Now ask the same regarding young American men. The difference is about as wide as it could be. Militarily, we don't offer squat. Meanwhile, look at the way Australia works against America's interests by loving on China. China made us rich and we stay close. This is a Marxist regime with expansionist aims. Again, you have to spend time in the USA to realise just how vast a gulf there is between us on China. Europe, too. They let China have their way everywhere from Germany to Greenland, all the while importing Islam and sending their own people to court for saying hurty words. Somehow, we have landed the deal of a lifetime with the USA that says, "when the baddies come, you'll save us ok?" Because we can't save ourselves. And we live in peace. But we keep gnawing away at freedoms, keep enabling China, and get flabby and disinterested about our military because Uncle Sam's got it. And, let's be honest, Americans are widely looked down on. To add insult to injury, we don't think that highly of our protectors. So, the USA is finally saying "enough." I am here, I can tell you what the vibe is, and that's it. Trump is doing what people want in this regard. They're over it. And we come across all shocked and hard done by. We behave like people with no self-insight at all. Yes, the global alliance system is all over the place now. From America's perspective, it's about time. And I must say, though I be a proud Australian, I am forced to agree. Something has to change.

🚨🇺🇸🇮🇷 Tomorrow is the deadline. Here are the scenarios... Trump said Tuesday is "Power Plant Day and Bridge Day." Iran said no deal. Something has to give. Here's what could actually happen: Scenario 1: Iran blinks. Tehran accepts some version of a ceasefire, perhaps reopening Hormuz partially or allowing monitored shipping. Trump declares victory. The most optimistic outcome but the least likely given U.S. intelligence says Iran believes it has the upper hand and doesn't trust Washington at all. Scenario 2: Trump finds a reason to delay again. He's already pushed this deadline multiple times. Iran offers a small concession, maybe more Pakistani tankers through Hormuz, and Trump takes it as a sign of progress. Both sides may even quietly agree on this. It buys time without either side losing face. Scenario 3: Trump declares victory and walks away. He already told aides he'd leave with Hormuz closed. He could frame the military damage as mission accomplished, claim the new regime is "more reasonable," and punt Hormuz to an international coalition. Iran keeps the Strait. Trump keeps the narrative. The world cleans up the mess. Scenario 4: Trump goes all in. He's threatened this repeatedly and delayed every time. But the rescue mission may have emboldened him. Former aides say his confidence in his own judgment has grown. If he strikes power plants, 85 million Iranians lose electricity. Iran's response would likely be the most devastating of the entire war: desalination plants, Bab el-Mandeb, every bridge on their published target list. A retired CENTCOM commander thinks pressure will eventually work. U.S. and allied intelligence say the opposite: the new Supreme Leader is harder line than his father, and the IRGC is gaining authority, not losing it. Over a month in, Trump is still asking the same question he asked on day one. Why haven't they just given in? Tomorrow we find out what happens when that question still has no answer. Source: NYT, WSJ

🇺🇸🇮🇷The war nobody is framing correctly is about the dollar, not the nukes... Iran was selling 90% of its oil to China in yuan. Not dollars. It was part of a broader BRICS push to bypass the dollar in global energy trade. Venezuela was doing the same. Trump took out both within weeks of each other. That's not a coincidence. The entire American economic model runs on one assumption: the world buys and sells oil in dollars, and those dollars get recycled back into U.S. debt. The GCC is the engine of that system. Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, and Bahrain sell oil in dollars and reinvest the proceeds into American assets. That cycle funds the $39 trillion in national debt that keeps the American economy functioning. Iran threatened that system in two ways. It sold oil outside the dollar. And it had the military capability to threaten the GCC nations that anchor the petrodollar. A nuclear-armed Iran could eventually coerce its neighbors into abandoning the dollar entirely. Now look at what the war actually achieved. Iran's ability to threaten the GCC militarily is being degraded. Gulf states that were quietly diversifying toward China are now completely dependent on American protection again. The F-35 sale to Saudi Arabia locks Riyadh into the U.S. weapons ecosystem for decades. And every Iranian oil sale in yuan that gets taken offline is a sale that reverts back to dollars. The consequences if this fails are existential. If the U.S. withdraws from the Middle East without securing the petrodollar system, the GCC could become client states of whoever guarantees their security next. Japan and South Korea would question American reliability. Europe would accelerate its pivot away from Washington. Dollar demand collapses and America can no longer finance its debt. That's why there's no real off-ramp. The nukes are the justification. The missiles are the pretext. The dollar is the reason. And the people paying the price are everyone caught in between. Source: CNBC, Breaking Points, WSJ