You can put it in your history book as you'd like, but it doesn’t address TD's point.

Perhaps, but the simple fact remails, the US won't run short of oil if the Straits remain closed.
Europe can't say that.

It's not about running short, it's about the price of gas at the pumps. It doesn't matter if the US won't run short, if gas continues on it's current price trajectory then Trump will quickly lose support at home. To suggest that the US does not have any interest in keeping the Straits open is frankly laughable.

We do have an interest which is why Trump is calling out to NATO. The question is who will it have a greater impact on, the US or Europe?

NATO is a defensive alliance, it's charter is to spring to each other's collective defence after an attack on any one of it's member states. Not an alliance that one member can simply demand at it's will to assist in unilateral foreign adventures when said member acted as the aggressor.

Missed it by only about 1800 NM.

tdracer
You maybe surprised to know we don’t, it impacts further east and south from us currently. If Mr Trump wants the cavalry he will have to look further east and as 2 nations there are already getting their tankers though by arrangement then you may have to look at smaller nations. However the impact is on world oil price hence your own price rises.

Cheers
Mr Mac

What about Mr Trumps "Board of Peace"? Would this creation of his not be a logical place he could turn to in case of need?

After all, NATO is a defensive alliance. As none of its member states are under attack at the moment, it is not immediately obvious to me why it should ride to the rescue.

Also, the official way of setting NATO in motion is not a post on whatever that message board of Mr Trumps choice may be called at the moment, it requires formally invoking Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, to which the US as a partner in this treaty would have a right, were they so inclined. They did once already and had their friends and partners come to their aid, as we all remember.

What NATO is clearly not is a "Get out of Jail" card. It is a defensive alliance, never having been intended to ride to the rescue when someone, purely hypothetically, may have started a war that was later found out to have been ill advised, badly planned, and not going into the desired direction.

Matt Whittaker the US NATO Ambassador just a moment ago.

Ukraine is not a NATO issue but rather a European issue in which the US has been more than happy to assist.

Somehow the Europeans and the UK are saying Iran isn't a NATO issue so they won't get involved.

Imagine if the US had said that when Russia invaded the Ukraine.

NATO has been exposed as a one way relationship and I believe we were seeing NATO loosing cohesion as members no longer share the same general political aims.

Good grief. With friends like the US...........

I didn't say the UK, I said Europe.
If Europe can meet its own petroleum needs, why were they so dependent on Russian imports before the Ukraine war?

Yes, price is a concern, but shortages are completely different. I remember all too well, having to wait in long lines to purchase gas in 1973 and 1979, as well as having to limit weekend trips to a distance that I could cover without refueling when all the gas stations were closed on weekends. The US will suffer some pain from higher fuel prices, but nothing like what happens when you run short.

You're have a better case if the US hadn't been paying the lion's share of the cost of NATO for most of the last 80 years.
As Hangerless notes, this sort of Trump hatred is doing far more damage to NATO than Putin could ever dream of accomplishing.

How he can say this with a straight face is beyond me. One day back in 2022 we woke up with Russia invading Ukraine.

Three weeks ago we woke up to find one of us had ( bilaterally) attacked another country. And now because we won't join that offensive, the cohesion is damaged. Well maybe it is - but not for the reason stated..

Defense expenditure is not the same as NATO spending. What you're suggesting is that the USA has contributed more to NATO in the last 80 years than every other member combined. Which is wrong.

Please feel free to give ive us some numbers and references to support your assertion.

Please feel free to use Google. All the answers you seek are easy to find. As are the definitions of 'Defence Spending' and 'NATO spending'.

You will find the USA contributes approximately 15% of NATOs budget, similar to Germany. There is absolutely zero evidence that the USA has contributed more to NATO, over the last 80 years, than all other members combined and indeed several members had larger NATO contributions than the USA during the Cold War.

I don't know about the UK, but it's a well established fact that most members of NATO have frequently failed to meet the treaty obligation of 2% GDP spending on defense - and the US has had to make up for that. Trump brought that up during his first term - that the US couldn't afford to keep doing that - and the rest of NATO blew him off.
You didn't wake up until Putin invaded Ukraine.
The US has also contributed far more in dollar value to Ukraine that any other nation. There is a valid complaint that - as a percentage of the US GDP - it's less than some countries - but that glosses over the fact that we are still sending them more stuff.

td, I think they are still fast asleep and blissfully dreaming that it is Americas job to defend them.

Turns out 2 of the 3 US's Gulf-based minesweepers are currently in Malaysia. Couldn't make this up...

No, the USA, nor any other country for that matter, does not make up the shortfall if a country doesn't meet its 2% of GDP spend.

The 2% is also not an obligation it is a political commitment of a country to spend on it's own military. It is, therefore, not owed to, or paid by, anyone else.

Facts are bothersome aren't they?