Thursday, September 3, 2026

“You don't reinforce failure. You move on. You find something else."

 

The Other 98%:


French General Michel Yakovleff just compared joining Trump's Iran war to "buying cheap tickets for the Titanic" after it already hit the iceberg. And then it got even worse for Trump.


Yakovleff is no random talking head. He's a three-star general, former commander of the legendary French Foreign Legion, and held senior positions within NATO itself. He is one of the most respected military voices in France and regularly weighs in on matters of international security. 


So when he was asked about Trump's desperate pleas for Europe to join his Iran catastrophe, his answer carried serious weight.


He didn't mince words. He laid out five distinct reasons why every European nation should flatly refuse. And each one is more damaging than the last.


First, Trump doesn't understand how NATO actually works. You don't get to launch your own unilateral bombing campaign and then invite allies to run a separate operation underneath you. That's not how alliances function. 


If Trump wants NATO involved, NATO takes command. One operation, one flag, one chain of command. "I don't think he understood that," Yakovleff said. That alone is a devastating indictment of a man who claims to be the greatest dealmaker on earth

.

Second, nobody knows what the actual strategic goals are. Beyond forcing open the Strait of Hormuz, what is the endgame? Regime change? Containment? A negotiated settlement? Trump hasn't said. He apparently can't say, because he doesn't know himself.


Third, and this one is particularly brutal, you can't coordinate a multinational military campaign through tweets that change every two minutes. If allied nations are going to put their soldiers in harm's way, they need explicit, written objectives from the United States. As Yakovleff put it, "It's going to be necessary for Trump himself to know what he wants." The quiet contempt in that sentence could strip paint off a wall.


Fourth, there is the fundamental issue of trust. Trump has abandoned allies before and everyone knows he would do it again without hesitation the moment it became politically useful. The Kurds know it. The Afghans know it. Europe knows it. "He would let us down whenever it suited him," the general said. Why would any nation put troops on the line for a leader with that track record?


And fifth, the knockout punch. Yakovleff cited a principle he said he learned at the U.S. Army War College: "You don't reinforce failure. You move on. You find something else." A decorated French general is using American military doctrine, taught in American war colleges, to explain to the world why following this American president into battle would be strategic malpractice.


The global response has been just as damning. Japan said no. Australia said no. The United Kingdom said no. The European Union said no. Meanwhile, Iranian missiles and drones have made the Strait of Hormuz so dangerous that insurance companies won't cover oil tankers passing through it.


Twenty percent of the world's petroleum normally flows through that strait. Oil prices are skyrocketing and consumers everywhere are feeling it.


Trump started this. He escalated it. He isolated America from its allies in the process.

4 comments:

  1. A failing, no,already failed dimwit. trump is both America's greatest embarrassment and its greatest disgrace.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Awww... the French are still mad at us over Suez (1956)

    ReplyDelete
  3. The 1956 Suez Crisis and today's crisis in the Strait of Hormuz both involve strategic maritime chokepoints used as political weapons, but they differ significantly in global economic scope and imperial power dynamics.

    Similarities

    Strategic Chokepoints: Both waterways sit at the center of critical global energy pathways.

    Leverage: Regional actors and conflicts turn narrow maritime routes into instruments of intense political and economic pressure.

    Allied Intervention: Israel acts as a key military player alongside a major Western power seeking to counter a regional antagonist.

    Key Differences

    Scope of Impact: The 1956 Suez closure was primarily a Western European energy crisis. Today's Hormuz disruption is a global economic calamity affecting oil, natural gas (LNG), Asian manufacturing supply chains, and food prices worldwide.

    Nature of the Waterway: Egypt legally nationalized and owned the man-made Suez Canal. The Strait of Hormuz is a natural international waterway that has become contested through war.

    U.S. and Imperial Stakes: Britain's direct territorial and resource reliance on Suez exposed its imperial overreach in 1956. The U.S. today is far less dependent on direct Persian Gulf imports due to domestic energy production, meaning the impact on America is largely indirect through global markets and allies. Analysts debate whether Hormuz represents an Hormuz Is Not America's Suez moment, or a true test of hegemonic decline.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Imperialism is obviously alive and stalking in trump, as well as the syncophants supporting him.

    ReplyDelete