sciarrone

Dopo avere infragilito l’intero sistema energetico europeo, con la irragionevole e fallita combinazione rinnovabili/elettrificazione, ora l’unione scarica il costo delle sue scelte disastrose sui cittadini.

Well, here are my thoughts... Firstly, I doubt that Trump has ever heard of Hegel or would have the slightest inkling of what 'dialectic' means. But the picture you present is essentially Trump's narrative - that NATO allies and others are free-riders on American hard power. But your analysis is ahistorical. You write as if America has no skin in the game - like they're doing the rest of us a big favour keeping the bad guys at bay. You don't mention the petrodollar system that replaced the Bretton-Woods Agreement that was repudiated by the 'Nixon-shock' in 1974. That new system was a deal between the US and Saudi Arabia, and then the other Gulf petrostates, whereby in return for American guarantees of security and investment these states would price and sell oil in US Dollars - and then recycle the Dollar surplus back into the US economy by buying US debt. It is this arrangement that has created an almost limitless demand for US loan notes and funded 50 years-worth of US budget deficits. Part of that US security guarantee was to keep the Hormuz Strait open so the oil exports could keep flowing. But in this present conflict America has failed to defend its Gulf allies from Iran's retaliatory strikes and now the Hormuz Strait is closed. This is a strategic catastrophe for the US - proving themselves to be unreliable allies to the very states that buy their debt. This could be the fulcrum on which the petrodollar system is undermined or even collapses and the Yuan becomes the currency for pricing oil. This isn't some Trump-genius Hegelian dialectic working its way through, it's a god-almighty cock-up by a President being manipulated by a Zionist Israeli leader. The tail wagging the dog nearly always leads to disaster.

Food for thought. Trump, Hormuz and the End of the Free Ride For half a century, Western strategists have known that the Strait of Hormuz is the acute point where energy, sea power and political will intersect. That knowledge is not in dispute. What is new in this war with Iran is that the United States, under Donald Trump, has chosen not to rush to “solve” the problem. In Hegelian terms, he is refusing an easy synthesis in order to force the underlying contradiction to the surface. The old thesis was simple: the US guarantees open sea lanes in the Gulf, and everyone else structures their economies and politics around that free insurance. Europe and the UK embraced ambitious green policies, ran down hard‑power capabilities and lectured Washington on multilateral virtue, secure in the assumption that American carriers would always appear off Hormuz. The political class behaved as if the American security guarantee were a law of nature, not a contingent choice. Their conduct today is closer to Chamberlain than Churchill: temporising, issuing statements, hoping the storm will pass without a fundamental reordering of their responsibilities. Trump’s antithesis is to withhold the automatic guarantee at the moment of maximum stress. Militarily, the US can break Iran’s residual ability to contest the Strait; that is not the binding constraint. The point is to delay that act. By allowing a closure or semi‑closure to bite, Trump ensures that the immediate pain is concentrated in exactly the jurisdictions that have most conspicuously free‑ridden on US power: the EU and the UK. Their industries, consumers and energy‑transition assumptions are exposed. In that context, his reported blunt message to European and British leaders, you need the oil out of the Strait more than we do; why don’t you go and take it? Is not a throwaway line. It is the verbalisation of the antithesis. It openly reverses the traditional presumption that America will carry the burden while its allies emote from the sidelines. In this dialectic, the prize is not simply the reopening of a chokepoint. The prize is a reordered system in which the United States effectively arbitrages and controls the global flow of oil. A world in which US‑aligned production in the Americas plus a discretionary capability to secure,or not secure, Hormuz places Washington at the centre of the hydrocarbon chessboard. For that strategic end, a rapid restoration of the old status quo would be counterproductive. A quick, surgical “fix” of Hormuz would short‑circuit the dialectic. If Trump rapidly crushed Iran’s remaining coastal capabilities, swept the mines and escorted tankers back through the Strait, Europe and the UK would heave a sigh of relief and return to business as usual: underfunded militaries, maximalist green posturing and performative disdain for US power, all underwritten by that same power. The contradiction between their dependence and their posture would remain latent. By declining to supply the synthesis on demand, and by explicitly telling London and Brussels to “go and take it” themselves, Trump forces a reckoning. European and British leaders must confront the fact that their energy systems, their industrial bases and their geopolitical sermons all rest on an American hard‑power foundation they neither finance nor politically respect. The longer the contradiction is allowed to unfold, the stronger the eventual synthesis can be: a new order in which access to secure flows, Hormuz, Venezuela and beyond, is explicitly conditional on real contributions, not assumed as a right. In that sense, the delay in “taking” the Strait, and the challenge issued to US allies to do it themselves, is not indecision. It is the negative moment Hegel insisted was necessary for history to move. Only by withholding the old guarantee, and by saying so out loud to those who depended on it, can Trump hope to end the free ride.