Iran: *literally pisses off the primary military force of NATO, gets bombed into oblivion, still talks shit*
You: Clearly Iran would NEVER challenge NATO.
There is a big difference between shady hybrid warfare tactics and launching an all out conventional attack. Iran thought it was being clever, subverting the US in ways that could further their proxy wars in the Middle East without inviting an all-out attack. For a long time this strategy has had some success, furthering Iranian interests in places like Iraq and Syria without provoking a war with America. They thought they could get away with this forever, and evidently they were very wrong about that.
Hybrid warfare tactics (terrorism, sabotage, espionage, assassinations, cyber attacks etc) are used precisely to avoid a direct confrontation while still undermining your rival. If they merited a conventional response then Russia and NATO would be at war right now.
A very definitely NOT clever strategy would be firing ballistic missiles at random European countries for no reason, guaranteeing an Iran-NATO war. Which is why there was never any prospect of them doing that. But now you're shifting the goalposts from that to a vaguer notion of "challenging NATO".
Not to turn this into Ukraine chat
Yeah I agree, we are going a bit off topic, so I'll just say I agree with you that the European response to Crimea in 2014 was abysmal and a major part of why that war started. Granted the US response courtesy of Obama wasn't much different. I'm not going to disagree with you that Europe is full of useless leaders who make bad decisions, I would just add that you cannot assume the European interest is always in alignment with the US interest, and even when they do align, priorities can be different as well.
In 1966 Charles De Gaulle withdrew France from NATO and ordered all American military personnel be withdrawn from French soil.
Well there is context for that - a similar story to today actually - in 1957 the UK and France planned an operation with Israel to seize the Suez Canal, which had just been nationalised by Gamal Abdel Nasser, President of Egypt. They did so without consulting the US. Did the US send troops to back up their allies? No, they demanded an immediate withdrawal and threatened financial pain if they refused. The UK and France capitulated, which was humiliating for them. From their perspective, they were protecting a vital strategic asset for the Western alliance, and they were stabbed in the back for it. Even those who saw merit in America's concerns about the operation still felt betrayed by their heavy-handed response.
Then there was the Algerian War. Algeria was not just a colony, it was an integral part of the French Republic. It had a massive French settler population. Losing Algeria was as painful for France as losing Texas would be for the US. However, the US actively opposed France in the war and pressured them to give up the territory. Because the US saw it as a colonial war (not wrongly, if we're being honest) and was committed to decolonisation, and was also worried about the Algerians turning to the communists. This was a deep betrayal for France.
So, from the perspective of the French, you have two huge betrayals in the space of a few years. The French were not seeing the US as an ally, but as an overlord that was actively against French interests. Their decision to leave the NATO command structure (but not NATO itself) and evict US troops was about asserting their sovereignty and preventing themselves from becoming too reliant on an unreliable ally. They still wanted to be on side with the Americans, just not under their boot. Ironically De Gaul and Trump would've agreed on a lot.
The US is not asking for Europe to sacrifice 250,000 of its own citizens and billions of dollars because the US wanted Peace in Our Time. That ask was for using bases, and sending some ships to escort oil that goes to European markets.
In a way, the US is asking Europe to accept the worst of both worlds. That is, to accept all the moral, legal and diplomatic liabilities of being part of this war, but without any of the operational oversight or a stake in the shape of its outcome. Why would they do that? A symbolic gesture? Out of a sentimental attachment to the alliance? We're well past that point. Trump has made it quite clear that NATO is no longer an ideological or familial alliance - it is a cold, pragmatic partnership that only has relevance when interests are at play.
But who knows, maybe what we are seeing right now is all performative. Maybe the Europeans know it will take time to get assets ready, and they are just using that time to make a fuss and twist Trump's arm to make a deal. Maybe they can get something from him in exchange for military support? If that is how business is done these days, might as well get in on the game!
