From Across the Pond

Trump’s decision to join Israel in a war against Iran is a far bigger strategic error, and one with far bigger strategic consequences.

The decision to go to war was a dangerous wager that force could achieve what diplomacy couldn’t — and it’ll likely cause the president trouble come November.

The U.S. may have abandoned its role in leading a rules-based system. But there is every reason to hope that others will take up the leadership mantle now.

The U.S. president is betting on becoming the world’s largest — and last — petrostate, while China is betting on becoming its largest and lasting electrostate.

It took the bloc an entire year to accept the loss of the transatlantic relationship. The question for 2026 is, will it turn this acceptance into action?

As long as the handful of players within Trump’s administration keep operating on their own, there will be chaos and confusion surrounding any Ukraine peace plan.

Abandoning the global order without considering what will take its place is the height of folly.

The U.S. president’s “Donroe Doctrine” represents a deep break from modern national security thinking.

Soon, everyone will get wiser and realize they have alternatives — and that when they unite, the U.S. president will be unable to continue his shake down operations.

The fighting in Ukraine is only part of Russia’s wider war against the continent as a whole. It’s high time to recognize this reality and act accordingly.

The U.S. is losing a strategic partner in an important part of the world.

The U.S. president’s desire to be “peacemaker-in-chief” is based on a profound fallacy: that peace merely entails an end to fighting.

Unless Washington rectifies the situation swiftly, it will find not just Beijing but other parts of the world passing it by.

As more and more countries realize there is no fair deal to be made, they will likely look for economic opportunities elsewhere, no matter the short-term cost of transitioning.

Behind all the backslapping and bonhomie, it’s impossible to ignore the real concerns and fears that now fully penetrate the alliance.

While keeping the U.S. president onside will be important, erstwhile allies would do well to coordinate their response to Washington’s wholesale assault on its partners.

Given Tehran’s weakened state and Washington’s eagerness for a deal, success is possible. However, it’s more likely to resemble the 2015 one Trump abandoned.

Apparently, the U.S. military is for hire, even if there has been no request for its services. And if you want us — you have to pay.

If Washington is to continue to see enduring value in this historic alliance, it needs a true and more equal partnership.

In Trump’s world, it does little good to use the language of treaties or rules or laws. For Denmark and others to get their way, they’ll have to speak the language of power.

In a world less constrained by international norms and rules, and increasingly governed by sheer power, the strictures that long constrained nuclear proliferation are in danger of loosening — if not untangling altogether.

When the U.S. inaugurates Donald J. Trump as its 47th president, the country and world will be very different because of it.