Iran tries to cosy up to Europe to increase pressure on US

That's a stretch. They always had the ability to control the strait, but it was recognized and treated as international water. They did not legally or de facto have control of it.

Appreciate you owning up to a mistake on the Internet. Rare, but shouldn't be.

It's really more that a lot of Europeans now understand that war is largely an outdated concept and that you need to engage in diplomacy with both allies and enemies. So being cozy with Iran I interpret as "we're having formal diplomatic ties." There's also the fact that I believe Iran can only change if it's own people successfully overthrow the regime. We Europeans can despise the regime, but we can't help.

There's also the fact that nothing unites a people more than an invasion. Even if the US were to "completely dismantle" everything it would only be a matter of time before someone else takes over.

But it is not Europe’s job to come up with that framework to be honest. And to act in a way which is beneficial to Iran in the construction of that framework would not be wise. To a large extent we should say to Iran what we’ve said to the US - This is not our issue, we’re not involved. I don’t see why Europe needs to be involved, other than to participate in the monitoring & policing of those commitments.

I wouldn’t trust Iran to actually stop supplying russia with drones, missiles, artillery, ammunition, drone components, etc. And Iran isnt getting anything in that deal. We are already not attacking Iran, their vessels, or aiding in the blockade. So we give them nothing & they cut off one of their long time allies? And if they break that deal, then what does Europe do? Start attacking Iran?

Iran is sanctioned themselves , You're chatting a load of nonsense 

EU+ UK contributed more than 50% to Ukraine's funds , on a per capita basis we have given a lot more . Saudi and Qatar fund more Islamist Wahhabi propoganda than iran ever could , but You're a Yank so I wouldn't expect any education from you 

We're talking control not ownership. Iran was able to dictate who goes enters and who doesn't, and was able to command a fee for passage - that's control. In the current situation of USA blockade, control is disputed and not able to be fully exercised by either side. With two sets of pirates it's anyone's guess what happens now.

> so regardless of that after the treaty was torn up Iran factually did start it up again, and I'm not sure they would actually stop regardless of any deal. To iterate: So *they held up their part of the deal* until the other party tore it up. Who, again, reneged on the agreement? US or Iran? > Israel/US that supposedly uncovered that Iran was actually secretly working on nukes, Sure. And Iraq was working on WMDs. How was that again? Fool me twice, can't get shoed again? The point is that it would be in everyone's interest to keep Iran from developing nukes, and the best way of doing that is to have inspections and control over Iran's nuclear program. Which we did have until, and please forgive me for shouting, but I am getting tired repeating this: TRUMP F****** TORE IT UP. > but do you ALSO say the same about Iran? Oh, *that* is where you're coming from. Are you really so simple that you think I can't condemn two assholes at the same time? Why do you think I wrote "*At any other point in time, that would unquestionably have been the US, but that has shown itself to be a less dependable nation than Iran. Which is quite a sentence and sentiment to actually put into writing, but here we are.*"? This isn't a moral question. It's a question of Realpolitik, and *again*: The US has shown itself to be *less* dependable than Iran, which is kinda losing a race to the boy without legs. It takes a very stable jenius (that's what the J stands for, I am told) to maneuver an entire nation into this position. We're in this shitshow because of the US. They started it, they are showing themselves to be utterly incompetent to stop it, or maybe even unwilling (see the down low of Vance's "negotiations", which is that apparently, Iran was actually thinking the talks were progressing well, until the US just pulled out, and left) find any sort of viable solution. So why do we think we should trust the US to get us a solution that's palatable for the rest of the world, and that Iran would actually sign? edit: I gotta cut myself off here because I gotta walk the dog.

>Except this is entirely against the whole trump thing of european nations do not contribute enough to the shared defense. Over the last decade Denmark has routinely failed to hit its 2% commitment, so it isnt really a viable solution to say "hey you want this defense thing, continue to spend more and we get to free ride on the benefits" - this is why Mark Rutte was running point on de-escalating the situation. Denmark failed in its 2% commitment for the same reason that the US hasn't got more than 1 military base in Greenland: because it was unnecessary. And the more important consideration is that to take Greenland, the US must lose the entire alliance of NATO (military spending of over $600Bn/year and rapidly increasing)- as well as its ability to project power around much of the world (US loses its bases in Europe & e.g. Diego Garcia (British). So while the US gains little or nothing by taking Greenland, it loses the most powerful military alliance in world history. Mark Rutte is running de-escalation because he doesn't want NATO to collapse on his watch & is hoping that if he can keep things from escalating until someone sane in the US is at the wheel or controls a brake, his job is done. >I'm not trying to argue this point, but it also doesnt logically follow that this solves the problem. Greenland could always leave Denmark and just ally with China or Russia. Same basic construction of Diego Garcia almost being handed to Mauritius who is allied with China. Diego Garcia is a good example: Trump & the US supported the UK giving back the Chagos Islands to Mauritius (and the US having a long term lease on Diego Garcia) - but then Trump changed positions as part of an attack on Starmer, made for other reasons (and almost certainly fed talking points from Reform/Tories in the UK - given how inconsistent the point was with the rest of Trump's criticism). >Aside, I dont think this is actually agreed upon, and certainly if you rank militaries in the world its much stronger than the majority. The US has a short list of countries its seriously concerned about (China, Russia, Iran, a handful of smaller countries) and you see it in basically every National Security report going back many years. Russia is not a military threat to the US (aside from a theoretical nuclear risk , a massive disinformation & cyber attack risk)- hence why MAGA is allying itself with Russia against Europe & Russia is not identified as a threat in the National Security Strategy. At best, aside from those aspects, Russia is a regional military threat. Certainly a concern if you are sitting in Ukraine or the Baltic countries - but not at all for the US. After more than 1500 days in Ukraine, Russia has less control of Ukraine than it did in month #1. And again, if the US were concerned about Russia, it would actually try to assist Ukraine in taking out the Russian military: not attempting to help Russia to e.g. sabotage the EU by e.g. supporting Orban in Hungary. >Trump is not a person of nuance, but I think its also the likely case that the way this resolves is as simple as Denmark spending more on defense in the region [(and the US continuing to operate its base and open a few others)](https://www.nytimes.com/2026/04/01/world/europe/us-military-seeks-expansion-in-greenland.html). Sorry that's nonsense. If this were in any way what the US wanted, Trump wouldn't have threatened to immediately impose tariffs on any country (France, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway) that increased the NATO defence posture in Greenland. That in no way aligns with what the US were saying to the Danish government - or that the Danish government was confirming were the actual demands of the US. >referencing the National Security Strategy as if it would get to this level of granularity, we also didnt write about the Strait of Malacca or Strait of Hormuz - doesnt mean its not widely known in NatSec circles as being important geographically. Russia and China have been pushing for control of arctic shipping lanes, its obvious that as more traffic can go through as the oceans warm there the reliance on the Panama Canal will go down. It's not a question of granularity, the National security strategy didn't even identify Russia as a concern - only Europe

Probably also why he wants Canada.

Yeah, the strongest military in the world with thousands of nukes and the capcity to project their military power anywhere probably wouldn't be that much of a loss.