You mistakenly conflate Europe and NATO. They are not the same thing. Details and nuance matter - especially during times of armed conflict. Perhaps if the US had formed a “coalition of the willing” in advance (like we did with Kuwait) we might now have a different response. Our allies are generally not fond of being blindsided.
Good cop bad cop, NATO is beefing up as a military industrial complex.
We are trying to get an additional $200 b through congress. That is not simply for Iran. That includes replacing what Israel and Ukraine get from NATO.
I agree that not all of Europe is in Nato. But nearly all of the economic drivers of Europe are in Nato (now that Sweden and Finland have joined). Ukraine remains to be admitted.
Behind the scenes: One U.S. official said Trump told Netanyahu that following through on his threats to bomb the Lebanese capital would further isolate Israel around the world.
Two of the sources said Trump claimed he’d helped keep Netanyahu out of jail — a reference to his support during Netanyahu’s corruption trial.
Summarizing Trump’s remarks to Netanyahu, the U.S. official said: “You’re XXXXXXX crazy. You’d be in prison if it weren’t for me. I’m saving your XXXX. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”
A second source briefed on the call said Trump was “XXXXXX” and at one point yelled at Netanyahu: “What the XXXX are you doing?”
Easy peasy. You simply rephrase it as a humanitarian intervention. Just like Libya. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/clinton-gates-justifications-libya-intervention-2011-f893fc Hillary Rodham Clinton framed the 2011 Libya intervention as an internationally authorized, humanitarian effort that prevented an imminent massacre in Benghazi and thus saved tens of thousands of lives, while Robert Gates accepted the operation’s humanitarian rationale but stressed it was not a vital U.S. national interest and emphasized the importance of broad Arab and European engagement to justify U.S. participation.
The administration pointed to U.N. Security Council backing and coalition partners as the legal and political foundation that differentiated Libya from previous unilateral interventions, a line Clinton used to argue the U.S. role was part of a broader, multinational effort to enforce protections for civilians.
Clinton and the Obama White House maintained the administration had the constitutional authority to conduct the operation without seeking new congressional authorization, asserting that U.S. actions in Libya did not trigger the War Powers Resolution’s requirement for an explicit authorization for “hostilities,” a stance that prompted formal criticism from members of both parties and calls for more explanation to Congress.
No, in fact it has not. We officially asked NATO once, and only once to respond - that was after 9/11 - and NATO responded.
Nuance matters. A NATO country agreeing to assist (e.g. the UK, a NATO country, is assisting in Iran), is not the same as NATO agreeing to assist.
Which is why in Libya, only 10 countries assisted and not all of NATO. We have countries assisting with Iran too - so by that measure, one could claim “NATO” has responded - if you are willing to accept that they responded to Libya.
Per NATO Watch, as many as 22 countries are current providing assistance in Iran.