Allies and Foes – March 18, 2026

Interesting times resulting in the need for a complicated conversation on what it means to be an ally or a foe to the United States these days, more importantly how the current climate of nations is handling relationships with this nation and the Trump Administration specifically.

Look at this conversation as a result of the ongoing conflict between the US and Israel going up against Iran, and the all important Straight of Hormuz we started to talk about with this conversation and followed up with another conversation both largely about oil prices because of military action.

One subject that continues to come up is how to handle the Straight of Hormuz, that you also know well sees 20%, give or take, of the world’s oil movement on any given day… well, until this latest spat broke out.

Now that Israel and the US is weeks into the campaign, looking at being months or more, it is literally a one sided military fight for the most part, both Israel and the US decimating what little military capability Iran actually had. But, Iran has found at least one tactic to fight back. Iran has been moderately successful sending one way trip relatively inexpensive drones with explosives into the Straight of Hormuz targeting the few oil ships willing to navigate, at its most narrow point being about 24 miles across with Iran sitting to the north of that line.

In military and naval warfare strategy context, a textbook choke point.

During the initial phases of action in all this Iran did liter the Straight with mines and at one point sent a handful of naval assets into the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, the Straight being what separates the two, as well as the Arabian Sea. At the time looking to disrupt most shipping in the region. It worked, up to a point, but brings us up to current conditions.

With our prior conversations on this subject we have also approached a well known sometimes used idea of the US becoming a shipping insurance broker, if not underwriter, along side being a military escort service. This conversation expands on that, keep that part in mind as we progress.

The call to who arguably used to be allies

In the past week we have seen the Trump Administration bounce between requests to demands for various European nations to jump in and assist with safeguarding this critical path for oil movement.

Trump himself named several nations including China, France, Japan, South Korea, and the United Kingdom to become that naval escort duty. Alongside the US of course, but the coordination being according to Trump’s logic that these nations should “protect their own territory.” Logic being some of those nations obtain oil from nations impacted by this conflict far more than the US.

Which is both true, but misleading, as you also now know oil is a globally traded commodity where sellers and buyers can switch rapidly depending on conditions, like what Israel, the US, and Iran are all engaged in.

The other demand from Trump has been from NATO directly, suggesting they are making a “foolish mistake” by engaging in “one-way street” diplomacy by refusing to send in NATO assets such as naval mine detection and sweeper capabilities to counter Iran’s actions to date.

The current Status on Trump’s Requests?

The short answer is, largely rejection.

Most of whom used to be our closest allies have rejected, outright publicly rebutted, the request. Germany, UK, Spain, Italy and even NATO have all rejected the demand suggesting this all boils down to a “war of choice” the US decided to take on. All viewing this with sharp skepticism, suggestion of unnecessary, and perhaps even “illegal.”

You could argue Trump decided on a political save-face two-step dance on this, following these rejections Trump then claimed the US does not “need any help” further offering the US alone could handle reopening of the Straight to “normal” function.

This came with immediate pressure that may boil down to put up or shut up, our prior conversations naming the nations with oil outputs largely on hold. You may also argue an international bluff call was made, in that if Trump is so confidant in handling the Straight on his own then what are we all waiting for.

Economic impacts of oil trading so high domestically and internationally (WTI and Brent from our prior conversations) the pressure is clearly there with the midterm campaign modes arguably already running full-tilt. Domestically, Republicans are seemingly all for this effort into Iran while arguably everyone else is not.

Do we have allies, or is Israel it, and everyone is now a foe?

Admittedly, a bit of a trick question.

The real underlying question on this is how European nations, and other NATO nations elsewhere, view all of Trump’s actions and rhetoric to date on everything from trade to this so called “new world order.” To say that things are stable internationally, and relationship with key nations is warm, would be an outright lie.

One may argue that when a President says “America First” there is an inherent implication that everyone else is second or worse. Just uttering “new world order” already ranks nations.

The context being prior Presidents did not necessarily outright rank nation order with political talking points and slogans, more going with a pragmatic approach to working with our closest allies depending on national and international needs. That said, Trump and his Administration clearly has made that point.

Even Reagan, arguably the pivot point for Republicans turning into what we see today, went with rhetoric that typically emphasized American exceptionalism and “peace through strength”, but he generally framed the United States as a leader and “partner” to its allies rather than a superior. At the tail end of the old cold war there was still international skepticisms, be it for other reasons.

Reagan’s public statements focused on the moral and systemic superiority of Western democratic values, such as representative government and free-market capitalism popular with the west over authoritarianism and communism more popular with foes. A message and standard of unity.

What did not happen until the Trump Administration was outright rhetoric suggesting the US is superior, to even their own allies, therefore try to command them with the very disrespectful rhetoric popular with Trump, Hegseth, Rubio, even White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The they “will regret” this style mentality as if to suggest “peace through strength” could mean bully mentality of the very nations that fought along side of our own troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

One potential conclusion for us to evaluate…

This request for assistance to reopen the Straight of Hormuz, Trump now claims he does not need, is another subject added to Trump’s disagreements with our allies going back to the first Trump Administration. Like funding and strategy for NATO, dealing with Ukraine, handling Atlantic and European Security, or our now year plus into the making trade disputes and ever changing tariff conditions.

“Shake things up” as Republican hopefuls often say when trying to ride Trump’s coattails into their own political futures, ended up causing other consequences that will take years to undo. Beneficiaries of the chaotic relationship between the US and European Nations are all the wrong parties.

Like Russia, China, etc.

A real item to consider being, there is severe ideological friction between the goals of the Trump Administration and just about everyone else we used to rely upon, negotiate with, assist in each other’s issues, peacefully talk to for whatever, the list goes on. By extension, the idea of “all things west” now fractured.

One may even be inclined to argue that the Trump Administration through actions and rhetoric has altered the course for major European nations, like France and Germany especially, to consider “economic and strategic autonomy” from the US. Just a clever way to say distance themselves and removing dependence on US alliance. US technology, military hardware and even energy resources may send several European Nations shopping.

Three key stats to keep in mind.

• For Oil, just over 10% of US exported oil goes to the Netherlands for local refinement or redistribution across Europe.
• For Military Technology, around 38% (sources vary on this) is exported to various nations in Europe. F-35s, Abrams tanks, stationary and mobile ground to air missile defense systems, artillery systems, the list goes on.
• For everything else the US trades with European Nations, we are well above the $1 Trillion mark per year. Services and goods, going both directions, items that can alter our economy and theirs.

All that said, there is another implication to consider.

Various European leaders are now openly accusing the Trump Administration of “ideological war” by supporting right leaning “patriotic” parties, prominent political influences, and groups within Europe to counter the arguably ideological direction of the EU today. The US having an opinion on European politics is one thing, actively trying to alter public opinion to change the balance of power is another matter entirely.

Trump himself has explicitly identified several European “patriotic” leaders as his preferred partners, just about always contrasting them with current establishment leadership. Hungary, Germany, some UK, etc. In the case of Germany going so far as to suggest the AfD is a needed change to undo the “civilizational erasure” that the Trump Administration sees across Europe. This is on top of the general complaint from Republicans today on European “liberalism,” sometimes tied to New York or California liberalism.

Now, in fairness, this is not new. The first Trump Administration was clearly at odds with various European leadership and it was damn near bidirectional in concern during the 2024 campaign season. We all could have seen this coming, but it speaks to the core point of this conversation.

If you were leader for a European nation would you look at the US as an ally?

This becomes a question of statesmanship and pragmatism, not the “art of the deal” but the “art of the possible.” The demand of one-way street loyalty from members of a President’s Administration has no association to loyalty between nations that can only exist as a two-way street.

The stress ends up on an ideological blocker and amplifies a lesson other world leaders know all too well. A perfect deal that never happens is a worse outcome than a good deal that does happen.

So, is it really any shock that European leaders are not participating?

Before blurting out a quick answer while reading this, consider there very well could be a plethora of motivations for European nation leadership, and NATO itself, in dealing with the greater Middle East region.

Oil being primary but also all other trade occurring between Europe and the region not entirely apples-to-apples to what the US has with those same nations. We are near $200 billion per year between various European nations and various Middle Eastern nations. We simply cannot boil this down to strained relations between the US and everyone else not named Israel.

Speaking of and as of recent, Israel is becoming the only stable international partner the US has, even though they are now in a three-way military campaign into Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran. Fighting Iran and all their proxies, namely Hamas and Hezbollah. Only a matter of time before the West Bank is further looked into, more areas to expand into with settlement, and likely more military engagement.

There is a solid argument to be made, be it political as well, that the Trump Administration has not clearly put forth what the end zone looks like for this campaign into Iran. It is said to not be “regime change” or “nation-building” as they frequently take swipes at every other prior President going back to Bush 43, if not further back, sometimes saying “stupid” in their comments of those Presidents.

Speaking of calling people “stupid” that brings up another concern, European leaders and their less than ideal treatment by the Trump Administration to date, including all the hateful derogatory rhetoric. Then Trump turning around and calling on the very same leadership to support this campaign into Iran, the history books are likely to have a field day with this time of US history.

Ultimately, we find the very same Trump and his Administration speaking of foreign leaders with the very same “stupid” or “very stupid” branding. In a December 2025 interview with Politico, Trump very clearly distinguished between “good and bad” and “smart and stupid leaders,” also stating that there are “some truly stupid ones” in Europe. The benchmark being, Trump claimed these leaders were failing their countries by being too “politically correct” in whatever context.

Closing Question – Can you appease that sort of US President?

Looks like European Leaders have checked out. So no, is their conclusion so far.

Does not matter now if Trump is calling European leaders “stupid” for wanting higher levels of renewable energy production, or calling them “stupid” for how the long-term mess between Ukraine and Russia is playing out. Now it is a “foolish mistake” for those same leaders to not jump to Trump’s beck and call.

Almost insult to injury territory in treatment of those same leaders, those same nations.

The sad irony here is Biden, Obama, Bush 43, Clinton, Bush 41, and on back to Reagan too (perhaps continuing on back further with a few exceptions here and there) had enough statesmanship to pull off calling on allies at various times of international consideration and need. Not always a sure thing, sometimes involved deals, and might have been small to big asks or anywhere in between but the principle of treating an ally as an ally was there. So was the skillset of who we elected to deal with these things.

Parting thoughts… of course, up for consideration

When American Exceptionalism becomes America First, or when statesmanship for strong alliances becomes commands for obedience and adherence to “world order,” we may want to consider the realized stress on the adversarial nature of isolationism via arrogance when going up against the fundamentals of international cooperation.

Damn near mutually exclusive in that context as the core ingredient arguably has been discarded, duel direction respect.

With that, we have our answer as to why who used to be our closest allies now handles our nation’s leadership with kid gloves.

It also answers a question yet asked, perhaps hinted at, on some sort of middle ground between being an ally or a foe. If you extend that with us or against us mentality by Trump and his Administration to all other Americans not calling themselves “MAGA warriors” outward to international relations, using those tests of loyalty or litmus tests of political alliance, you also have your answer as to why other nations find themselves trying to navigate territory they should not be in. The political support absolutism inside our own duopoly of political power placed onto world leaders to pass or fail by.

And also answers why Trump is already resorting to various levels of threats to European nations, that he has also made very clear he does not like.

Might even want to consider that Trump is still put off by not getting another billion each from many of those nations to be in on his Board of Peace.