The administration routinely devalues others contributions and routinely says they don't need the help. What guarantee is there, anybody else would get any say? Heck, his own cabinet doesn't get any say.
Which is why I would suggest a non US Coalition. A viable third party, that could force/enforce a solution. If you can’t work with him, work around him, or force him to accept a joint goal.
There's no point in anybody else participating. That's not hating on the US or whatever else others are dreaming. That's simply accepting reality. It's all downside. If another country participates, their own population will be mad. They won't get any say. And if anything goes badly, they'll get blamed. The upside is maybe they get rid of the regime? And then what? Another potential refugee crisis in Europe?
There will be another refugee crisis if things continue as they are. Trump got Militarily involved, and his ego isn’t likely to accept anything Iran’s Leader(s) will.
@KevinB I genuinely respect your reasoned and moderate view here. I don't even necessarily disagree with. But I urge you to put yourself in the shoes of the average European and think through how American foreign policy has worked out for them over the last 20 years. Especially in the Middle East.
Since the end of WW2 the West has collectively allowed America to dictate policy.
In the Lead, Follow, or Get out of the way principle. America shouldered the lions share of defense expenditures and deployed large Armies into Europe and South Korea in turn for being accepted to call the shots.
For Vietnam, only the Aussies joined.
Panama and Grenada were purely American for both geographical and political reasons.
GW1 saw a true Coalition created - with a clear goal of pushing Iraq out of Kuwait.
Since then, I’d argue that there has not been a great effort in coalition building.
The Former Yugoslavian mess was a prime example of the UN wanting to do something but failing heavily and it wasn’t until NATO started using force that the area generally stabilized — the UN is a prime example in that situation of what dithering and convening does.
Now come 911, America was attacked and allies came to help in Afghanistan. I am disgusted by POTUS refusal to admit that coalition members fought and died for that, and it is a blight on the American character that his narrative is accepted. That said, anyone who was in Afghanistan also saw what National Caveats and political pressures resulted in, as some countries generally sat and watched.
Iraq, and Operation Enduring Freedom well I think we have all seen what failure to understand a countries geopolitical and religious makeup can do.
Syria and Libya can also show what occurs when folks are myopic and don’t look to larger issues.
If Europe and Canada want to be credible voice(s) then skin needs to be in the game. It would appear that historically Western Europe and Canada have been fine with either following or getting out of the way.
If you follow, as a minor contributor, you don’t really get a lot of say, and if you adopt “Get out of the way”, well then you have no voice to complain about anything.
The majority of Americans aren’t actively hostile to Canada and Western Europe, but there is aggravation when one sees what you all spend on Defense versus Social programs and then have the audacity to complain about how we chose to police the world.
The majority of the democracies of the world abdicated that role, and nature abhors a vacuum. I definitely don’t agree with how this “war” began, and the methods used. But that doesn’t mean I want the efforts to fail, as I see that being a major issue that will lead to more conflicts and increased inflation.
