alt.hn

3/31/2026 at 3:39:45 PM

Italy blocks US use of Sicily air base for Middle East war

 https://www.politico.eu/article/italy-blocks-us-use-of-sicily-air-base/

by prmph

3/31/2026 at 4:39:52 PM

Italy didn't join Spain in this: it's just that using the Sigonella airbase for military purpose requires parliament approval, which was not scheduled on time. Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.

Aviano hosts the 31° Fighter Wing (F-16 jets) and B61-4 nuclear weapons, while Sigonella has Mq-9 Reaper drones and Ep-3 surveillance airplanes.

For context, the other main US bases in Italy are: Ghedi (Lombardia region), Camp Darby (Tuscany region), Camp Ederle (Veneto region), the two harbors of Naples and Gaeta, and some other communications infrastructures. By the way, Camp Darby is the largest US weapons and ammunition warehouse in Europe.

by rippeltippel

3/31/2026 at 6:33:23 PM

Yeah. From the Italian defense minister:

> Someone is trying to get the message across that Italy has decided to suspend the use of bases for U.S. assets.

> Something that's simply false, because the bases are active, in use, and nothing has changed.

> The Government continues to do what all Italian Governments have always done in full adherence to the commitments made in Parliament and to the line reiterated in the Supreme Defense Council as well, in continuity with all previous Councils over the decades.

> International agreements clearly regulate and distinguish what requires specific Government authorization (for which it has been decided to always involve Parliament), without which it is not possible to grant anything, and what is instead considered technically authorized because it is included in the agreements.

> A minister only has to ensure they are respected.

> There is no third option.

> Finally, I want to reiterate that there is no cooling or tension with the U.S., because they know the rules that have governed their presence in Italy since 1954 just as well as we do.

https://x.com/GuidoCrosetto/status/2038945070833897586

by simonsarris

3/31/2026 at 4:42:45 PM

> Meanwhile, five US military flights took off from the other base of Aviano, Northern Italy.

This may be permitted under the agreements.

I can't find the Italian version, but Spain's agreement (https://es.usembassy.gov/agreement-on-defense-cooperation/) differentiates between aircraft already based in Spain versus ones transiting through.

> Aircraft of the United States forces which are deployed in Spain, permanently or on rotation, within the agreed force level, may overfly, enter and exit Spanish air space, and use the bases specified in Annex 2 of this Agreement, with no other requirement than compliance with Spanish air traffic regulations. In order to use other bases, military airdromes and airports, the corresponding authorization shall be requested through the Permanent Committee at least 48 hours in advance.

> Aircraft flying logistics missions, operated by or for the United States forces, other than those in paragraph 1, not carrying VIPs, HAZMAT or cargo or passengers that might be controversial to Spain may overfly, enter or exit Spanish airspace and use the bases specified in Annex 2 on quarterly blanket overflight clearances authorized by the Permanent Committee.

We'll see what Italy does if asked next time.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:59:24 PM

I really hope someday no US troops will be stationed in Italy.

I'm still livid about the Cavalese disaster in which I lost few distant friends (close friends of my Veneto uncle's):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_Cavalese_cable_car_crash

by epolanski

3/31/2026 at 5:51:21 PM

Interestingly I did a double take when looking this up as there is also an even worse "1976 Cavalese cable car crash" in the same vicinity 22 years earlier, this time the fault of a car operator and a design weakness.

In a twist of fate, the person partially responsible for the 1976 disaster was named Schweizer. The one partially responsible in 1998 was Schweitzer.

So if we are hoping whatever nationality/occupation pair is gone that is responsible for Cavalese car crashes, you'll be hoping to eject more than just Americans (it is not clear to me whether Schweizer was Italian as the last name seems more Germanic and apparently they were a seasonal worker). Maybe instead it is more specific to eject anyone with the name Schweit?zer ...

by mothballed

3/31/2026 at 4:55:18 PM

[flagged]

by tencentshill

3/31/2026 at 5:01:07 PM

Sad time today when it's not even clear how serious/sarcastic this comment is.

by whynotmaybe

3/31/2026 at 5:01:11 PM

The “CEO” of Italy is a she.

by layer8

3/31/2026 at 5:42:49 PM

Like pretty much every other word in that comment, we'll never know if the misgendering is intentional satire or not.

by hedora

3/31/2026 at 6:41:28 PM

To be fair she wants to be referred to as "il primo ministro" with the masculine article.

by aledue

3/31/2026 at 5:42:06 PM

Not sure if the CEO of the USA knows that, he confused Spain with Brazil.

by dvfjsdhgfv

3/31/2026 at 5:49:53 PM

if the USA CEO was she there would have been no confusion, education and all that ... :)

by bdangubic

3/31/2026 at 5:08:07 PM

> european woke bureaucratic bullshit

This may have been an attempt at rage-bait, but putting woke and bureaucracy next to each other makes it actually hilarious.

by patates

3/31/2026 at 5:20:35 PM

I don't know if this is a troll. But anti-woke is not slavishly following the US. Anti woke would be: "Take your troops that currently fail in the Middle East out of the EU and don't bother us with your NATO withdrawal threats. You can't even protect the Gulf region."

by 31zq6j

3/31/2026 at 5:07:05 PM

I can't tell if this is satire or a shocking indictment of the US education system

by swarnie

3/31/2026 at 4:27:23 PM

That is a misleading headline. Italy refused landing to flights outside normal operations without a prior request. We don't know how the Italian government would respond to a request if the US took the time to make one.

by michael1999

3/31/2026 at 4:49:16 PM

> […]if the US took the time to make one.

Is it normal for the Americans to behave this way or is this new procedure?

by Waterluvian

3/31/2026 at 5:18:09 PM

I really wish that people would distinguish between "Americans" and "the US government" (and between the latter and the Trump regime) more clearly. I am Turkish and when I am associated with the behaviour of the Turkish government (which happens when I am abroad), it is very unpleasant. I lived in the States for 7 years and have many friends there. I am guessing they would similarly find this association unpleasant.

by atakan_gurkan

3/31/2026 at 6:31:15 PM

Americans should stop voting in governments like this then.

by patrickmcnamara

3/31/2026 at 7:57:56 PM

Majority of them didn't want this government, but US elections can be gamed.

by swat535

3/31/2026 at 8:06:56 PM

In fairness America doesn't work like Europe. The president can just start a war without asking for permission from the people nor parliament.

by expedition32

3/31/2026 at 6:11:14 PM

It should feel unpleasant. I don't believe Americans are a victim of an oppressive regime and I don't think they get to abdicate responsibility for their government's actions by asking the world to make that distinction. Because I certainly don't get a choice of who I trade with and who is threatening my country's existence.

To put simply: the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.

If we get to a point where Americans by and large do not believe they have any power over their democracy, and that they're helpless victims of an oppressive government, I think my perspective would change in the same way I don't think Iranians are to be expected to deal with their government.

I should be clear because this is a very pointed perspective: I don't dislike Americans. As a Canadian it's inevitable that I am close friends with countless Americans. There's a number of them in my very close family. But I believe they bear responsibility for their government because I believe the U.S. is, for now, still a democracy.

by Waterluvian

3/31/2026 at 7:33:35 PM

> the best peaceful tool I feel that I have to protect my children's future is to maximize the embarassment, shame, and personal disgust of those who the U.S Government represents. Those who have a vote and a voice in their town square. Those who can protest or strike. The goal is to make current levels of domestic inaction intolerable. I'm delighted by the No Kings turnout. That's a good start.

And I’ll vote for the people that prevent and/or limit the damage you wish to cause to the current administration and its supporters. Especially if it means using privacy laws to prevent doxxing of such individuals or any adverse action against them.

by cmxch

3/31/2026 at 6:40:12 PM

So, EU members will keep preaching peace and humanity and still keep doing contrary to that.

by foragerdev

3/31/2026 at 7:16:38 PM

Which ones were that?

by izacus

3/31/2026 at 7:24:01 PM

History is full of such incidents. Isn't US have been using EU air space to conduct strikes in other countries? Is not EU kept silence for the election stolen in Pakistan? Is EU kept silence when hundreds of people were killed by Pakistan Army in 2024 and 2025? Is not EU kept Pakistan 2024 election report unpublished for 2 years? Why do EU support Pakistan Army's illegal rule? Oh, and Isn't NATO has been killing in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan?

by foragerdev

3/31/2026 at 4:07:03 PM

> As these were not logistical flights, they were not covered by the bilateral treaty governing U.S. military bases in Italy which allow for logistical and technical use; that led Defense Minister Guido Crosetto to deny the planes the use of the Sigonella base since permission in this case would need approval from the Italian parliament.

by mattrighetti

3/31/2026 at 4:25:40 PM

And:

> their flight plan was not communicated in advance to the Italian air force general staff, nor had the American aircraft received authorization to land,

Sounds like they might have gotten authorization if they had just told them in advance.

by mr_mitm

3/31/2026 at 4:25:38 PM

What is a logistical flight?

by pmdulaney

3/31/2026 at 4:33:28 PM

Cargo, passengers?

Versus combat operations.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:59:01 PM

[flagged]

by thebeardredis

3/31/2026 at 5:02:10 PM

This isn't the place for that

by diordiderot

3/31/2026 at 4:04:33 PM

(Joining Spain and France.)

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:06:02 PM

and they can't fly over Switzerland. [1]

[1] https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzerland-bars-us-overflights...

by sschueller

3/31/2026 at 4:38:05 PM

Edit: I'm wrong! Yoink!

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

3/31/2026 at 4:41:26 PM

this is not true

by umpalumpaaa

3/31/2026 at 4:38:19 PM

Uh, what? They very much did not.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:39:47 PM

Retracted. Not sure where I heard that. Likely confused with Sweden

by 2OEH8eoCRo0

3/31/2026 at 5:04:23 PM

It is a war, military operation, or an aggression?

by elAhmo

3/31/2026 at 5:44:37 PM

Call it what you want. Just don't use accurate terms like apartheid, genocide or war crime.

by hedora

3/31/2026 at 4:46:42 PM

More intentionally misleading propaganda. Just like France's supposed ban of its airspace to US aircrafts claimed by Trump which is, needless to say, wrong. Think about what countries benefit from spreading this misinformation through media channels.

https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/31/f...

by 0x_rs

3/31/2026 at 5:59:11 PM

Unironically there are currently multiple US military aircraft transitting over France and Italy as I type.

by blitzar

3/31/2026 at 4:51:55 PM

[flagged]

by juliusceasar

3/31/2026 at 4:20:13 PM

[flagged]

by dayyan

3/31/2026 at 4:23:19 PM

If they could remember they wouldn't keep making the same mistake multiple times. But I guess no danger of that.

by stanski

3/31/2026 at 4:53:52 PM

The US keeps making the same mistake by getting involved? Funny thing is, y'all keep making their own mistake: thinking that doing nothing will make Iran and its problems just go away.

by dayyan

3/31/2026 at 5:02:58 PM

I can think a moving buzzsaw is dangerous, but also think your plan to stop it with your hands is gonna make things worse.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:13:46 PM

[flagged]

by pmdulaney

3/31/2026 at 4:16:05 PM

Trump's stupidity is why italians are suffering from this oil crisis. It makes sense for them to not want to support it in anyway

by samrus

3/31/2026 at 4:24:42 PM

Sort of. The management or mismanagement of the war (and it is a war) falls squarely on the shoulders of the President and the current Secretary of Defense.

But you have to also look at the reality of the situation. Iran was selling drones and weapons to Russia to help it prosecute its unjust war in Ukraine. They were loading up on missiles and missile launchers and regardless of the Obama nuclear deal was intent on obtaining a nuclear weapon. Where does that leave the world strategically?

Well, if you have an Iran that, never mind the nuclear aspect, has thousands and thousands of missiles and can rain hell upon its Gulf neighbors and decide to "manage" the Straight of Hormuz whenever it wants - you are not in a really bad spot. We saw what happened with North Korea. I don't think we want another one in the Middle East. And if Iran continues or continued to build up weapons, the Arab states are obviously going to load up and they're going to buy/build nuclear weapons themselves. This is untenable.

There seems to be this misunderstanding that Iran is just this country who happens to want to wipe the United States and Israel off the face of the earth (regardless of who did what and when) and if only somehow the United States withdrew from the Middle East (I wonder why they want that? hint hint) and "stopped supporting Israel" that Iran would let ships happily just pass through this straight and all would be just fine. The truth of the matter is that Iran was seized by religious fanatics and the world giving in to that fanaticism just emboldens it, it doesn't placate it. Just like with Russia - if you give in to Putin he just asks for more.

Yet again the United States faces a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Launch airstrikes and stop Iran from doing what it is doing. Bad bad bad. Leave Iran alone, withdraw from the Middle East - now you're isolationist and you withdrew from the world and allowed Iran to "kick you out". Gulf states become vassals or nuclear armed in response. It's not great.

A lot of folks are talking about the United States and how it is withdrawing from the world and such. Well, here's an example right in front of you. If the US had pulled out as Iran demanded and said "not our problem" you'd now have an Iran full-on supporting Russia, providing missiles, drones, and more, control over 20% of the world's oil supply where they can exact tolls, turn Gulf States into vassals (for those who can't get a nuke), and would continue to directly pay, arm, and supply groups throughout the Middle East and elsewhere to destabilize other countries and kill people including in Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, and more.

by ericmay

3/31/2026 at 4:37:30 PM

> If the US had pulled out as Iran demanded and said "not our problem" you'd now have an Iran full-on supporting Russia, providing missiles, drones, and more, control over 20% of the world's oil supply where they can exact tolls, turn Gulf States into vassals (for those who can't get a nuke), and would continue to directly pay, arm, and supply groups throughout the Middle East and elsewhere to destabilize other countries and kill people including in Israel, Lebanon, Yemen, and more.

You're describing the current situation. The tolls are new, as a response to the war! They've been supplying Russia with drones for years! They've been funding groups throughout the Middle East for decades!

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 5:14:34 PM

> You're describing the current situation. The tolls are new, as a response to the war!

You're assuming that you know their strategy, and you don't. They very well may have been planning to do so in the next 5 or so years. Even if they didn't plan on that, they were building up their missile production and accumulation to an extent where the damage we've seen today is pedestrian in comparison. They could at a whim, just say "give us X or we close the straight".

> They've been supplying Russia with drones for years! They've been funding groups throughout the Middle East for decades!

Yea, and we've basically done nothing about it because we've been trying to avoid confrontation... but maybe Iran shouldn't be doing these things. Just a thought.

by ericmay

3/31/2026 at 5:44:51 PM

> They very well may have been planning to do so in the next 5 or so years.

Our accelerating that doesn't seem like a big win so far.

> They could at a whim, just say "give us X or we close the straight".

They've been able to do that for decades.

> but maybe Iran shouldn't be doing these things

Few disagree.

But you're falling for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politician%27s_syllogism.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 5:48:17 PM

> Our accelerating that doesn't seem like a big win so far.

Maybe this can help.

It's 2025 and Iran has 1,000 missiles (just random rough numbers).

It's 2030, and Iran now has 5,000 missiles and bought a bunch of hypersonic missiles from China.

Sure, we can just "not accelerate" this, but then we're not going to do anything about it in 2030 because nobody is going to accept being on the receiving end of so much destruction.

> They've been able to do that for decades.

Not quite - they've had varying levels of capability here. Until recently they haven't had the missile and drone stockpile that they have today and have been building.

by ericmay

3/31/2026 at 4:38:32 PM

I mean, they are controlling Hormuz Strait now - they were not before the war. In addition they are now free to sell their own oil, because the sanctions have been lifted. And I can't see why they would stop supporting Russia with drones either. They also got to keep their enriched Uranium. I don't think I can name a single reasonable objective that US have achieved with this war.

by oytis

3/31/2026 at 5:17:43 PM

> And I can't see why they would stop supporting Russia with drones either. They also got to keep their enriched Uranium. I don't think I can name a single reasonable objective that US have achieved with this war.

It's been 3 weeks... we're going to stop the enrichment. We can stop the drone supply by blowing up the factories.

> I mean, they are controlling Hormuz Strait now - they were not before the war. In addition they are now free to sell their own oil, because the sanctions have been lifted.

They were de facto "controlling" the straight anyway because of their missile stockpile, they just hadn't yet exercised their leverage. They're free to sell their oil to the extent the US allows them to based on whatever decisions are being made. Obviously we can just blockade the straight too, even more effectively than Iran has been.

by ericmay

3/31/2026 at 4:37:59 PM

its not either or. if we expected support from European countries, we could have given them a heads up and understood their position in advance. it was not an emergency situation. we had an agreement, I know that doesn't mean shit to the current administration, but not every country is willing to go cowboy, and give up their sovereignty just because the US doesn't like rules and laws anymore. the US would clearly be in a better position now if it hadn't said 'screw you guys' and started shooting.

by convolvatron

3/31/2026 at 5:20:06 PM

I largely don't disagree with you, but at the same time had Trump asked they would have told him no anyway because Europe has little to no ability to help here and they're scared. As European prime ministers and officials have said already, and I'm paraphrasing "what can a few frigates do that the mighty US Navy cannot?". It rings true, as did the comment from the I believe Polish prime minister (or perhaps the foreign minister, either way) which said 600+ million Europeans are asking 300+ million Americans to defend them against 180+ million Russians. Something doesn't quite add up here.

by ericmay

3/31/2026 at 5:22:59 PM

This is a brilliant example of DARVO: The US and Israel decided to attack Iran but somehow they had no choice and are actually the victims in all of this.

by pepperoni_pizza

3/31/2026 at 4:17:39 PM

> That is going too far.

Ironic.

by curiousgal

3/31/2026 at 4:52:02 PM

[flagged]

by CrzyLngPwd

3/31/2026 at 4:15:56 PM

[flagged]

by deagle50

3/31/2026 at 4:26:51 PM

Are you sure it’s not just a government responding to its population? This war is deeply unpopular just about everywhere, it makes sense to anyone who wants to be re elected to avoid any involvement in it.

(an aside but I can’t help feeling like describing being anti-war as “virtue signalling” really highlights what a useless term it is. Of course it’s signalling virtue! It’s a good thing!)

by afavour

3/31/2026 at 4:29:22 PM

> This is just virtue signaling to Iran in the hopes their cargo ships don't get targeted, or to mitigate future tolls.

I don't think very many leaders think like that. Iran can be bought off with diplomatic ties and thawing of relationships. This is either a decision that will play well to home, or a "fuck off donnie" for bad mouthing them.

by KaiserPro

3/31/2026 at 4:34:48 PM

> I don't think very many leaders think like that.

Iran's missile attack on Diego Garcia (unexpectedly long range, more than we thought they had functional) puts Rome in missile range.

They're definitely thinking about that right now.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 6:35:58 PM

most of the EU were always in range. Thats how ballistic missiles work. Hence why we had the nuclear deal that trump binned.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/03/iran-tests-lon...

I know that hegseth has obliterated the planning and intelligence capability of the us military, but the news has less excuse.

by KaiserPro

3/31/2026 at 7:31:06 PM

> Thats how ballistic missiles work.

No; there are plenty of short and intermediate range ballistic missiles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precision_Strike_Missile has a public max range of ~300 miles, for example. Not every BM is an ICBM.

Your link cites a max of 1,200 miles and says "hitting Israel and US bases in the region". Diego Garcia almost doubles that number, which places London in range when it previously wasn't.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/21/politics/iran-missiles-diego-...

> While the attack was unsuccessful, it shows that Iran may not be adhering its self-imposed missile range limit of 2,000 kilometers, raising concerns about whether Tehran could hit US and European interests farther away than previously thought.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 4:34:13 PM

I don't think IRGC cares, they recently attacked a ship with oil for China even China is their main strategic partner (admittedly most ships which they are letting to pass the strait are China bound too).

by citrin_ru

3/31/2026 at 4:28:22 PM

Or perhaps it's in the context of the current US administration having spent the past year telling Europe to get screwed on trade, military etc?

by 4ndrewl

3/31/2026 at 4:28:29 PM

Even if you're right that's not virtue signalling, that's not joining in on a war against someone in hopes they won't treat you as a military target. That is just regular diplomacy.

by neaden

3/31/2026 at 6:19:04 PM

we're saying the same thing.

by deagle50

3/31/2026 at 4:21:06 PM

Just virtue signaling to show citizens they are not totally occupied (unlike Germany)

by postsantum

3/31/2026 at 4:44:53 PM

I'm curious how western Europeans reconcile their supposed desire to have Russia not invade Europe with simping for Russia's #1 defense partner?

Or do they just not care because Poland and Germany are east of them?

by dismalaf

3/31/2026 at 4:50:14 PM

So far it's only been the US lifting sanctions and greatly understating the military aid (including but not limited to drones) and intelligence (for targeting US and its allies) provided by Russia to Iran. In addition to all of the above, this war has been a great help to their declining finances.

by 0x_rs

3/31/2026 at 5:12:21 PM

We (many of us) are not fans of participating in a war without clear achievable objectives and a legal justification that also makes our lives objectively worse.

by oytis

3/31/2026 at 4:47:47 PM

If Iran is Russia's "#1 defense partner" then the issue is less for western Europeans to sort out and more for Russia to reconcile.

by bigyabai

3/31/2026 at 4:56:31 PM

Not invading a country is "simping" now?

by nicoburns

3/31/2026 at 5:01:19 PM

Is anyone asking them to invade?

by dismalaf

3/31/2026 at 5:17:28 PM

Well I guess perhaps "invade" is inprecise language. They are being asked to join an unprovoked offsensive (rather than defensive) war.

by nicoburns

3/31/2026 at 4:32:27 PM

On the one hand the US has pushed for this by weakening NATO. On the other hand what's interesting is that the EU's primary defense focus is Ukraine whose primary adversary's primary defense partner is Iran, including creator of the dominant drone that Russia uses to attack Ukraine. So while it makes sense that European countries are doing what they can to avoid being targeted by Iranian retaliation, it's a pretty sad state of affairs for Europe to not be able to do much to defend its interests (in Ukraine or the Gulf). All of this will lead to a newly muscular Europe, presumably. Which is what the US has been pushing for. But the US will have to get used to getting less red carpet treatment in Europe.

by redwood

3/31/2026 at 4:45:53 PM

I'm sure Europe would in theory prefer to be unified against Iran (for the reasons you mention, namely Russia), but the way this war was started was just too colossally stupid. It (entirely predictably) jacked up oil prices, so Iran is making more money on their exports, and Russian sanctions are being lifted. The immediate consequences of this war are directly funding our (both the US's and EU's) adversaries. I don't think fear of Iranian (para)military retaliation is much of a factor, but certainly not the main one.

by delecti

3/31/2026 at 5:15:18 PM

What makes you think Iran is making more money exporting oil than they were before the war?

by bethekidyouwant

3/31/2026 at 5:41:10 PM

I had heard that Iranian exports had increased. This [0] is the best source I can find commenting on their output either way, and it says they're exporting about 50% more. That part might be untrue, but the lack of reporting suggests that at worst that their output hasn't decreased. Whatever the change though, the price of oil has increased significantly, which makes them more money. So at present they're making anywhere from 50%-100% more money, depending on whether their exports have increased.

[0] https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/20260326-iran-says-oil-exp...

by delecti

3/31/2026 at 4:55:35 PM

There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily. So you had a choice: be permanently deterred or take action and bear the pain. Sure Europe would like to avoid that pain for obvious reasons, but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe. If you feel Iran and Russia are strengthened by this you're over-focusing on one key thing: oil revenue, when Iran is weakened by countless other things and Russia is weakened having their entire middle eastern strategic allies including the gulf players they've pandered up to now hostile.

by redwood

3/31/2026 at 5:04:08 PM

> There was no way you go to war with Iran without oil prices rising and the straits closing temporarily

Agreed, but

> but it's going to be a long-term gain in the form of a weakened Iran and a strengthened Europe

I don't think this is a sure thing at all.

The fact is that the US and Israel kicked a hornets nest that everyone is stuck in the room with, and everyone else in that room is understandably upset. And (to belabor the metaphor) the only ones who those hornets were eyeing had themselves been causing trouble for the past 80 years.

by delecti

3/31/2026 at 5:55:10 PM

To continue the metaphor, there are some that are comfortable having a hornet's nest in their bedroom and others that will take the initiative to remove it

by redwood

3/31/2026 at 5:18:06 PM

How is Iran weakened, in what sense? It suffered economic damage and casualties for sure, but I don't think there is anything it cannot recover from. It's just a pure destructive rage from US side without thinking of any long-term strategic results.

by oytis

3/31/2026 at 5:57:22 PM

They have put all of their resources into military technology over the last 30 years and now much of that is destroyed or degraded. They have lost their deterrence and the lawn will continue to be mowed if they do decide to attempt to rebuild it. Because the people resent the regime it's just a matter of time before things change on the ground and when that does happen assistance and economic opportunities will emerge. But until then Iran will be in this extremely degraded state

by redwood

3/31/2026 at 7:35:22 PM

> They have lost their deterrence…

This is a silly claim; they're still sending missiles and drones all over the area, and the strait is functionally closed.

We spent twenty years trying to tame Afghanistan and it went right back to the Taliban within days of withdrawal from the area. Iran has a lot more capacity to bounce back than they did.

by ceejayoz

3/31/2026 at 7:38:35 PM

Before the war, the regime was facing the threat of imminent collapse. But if the war ends without regime change, they may use it as an excuse to eliminate organizers and other key opposition figures. If they have not already done so. If no other options exist, the regime will remain in power, despite the lack of popular support.

As for deterrent, Iran will probably stop being a significant threat to Israel. But cheap drones have changed the situation closer to Iran. The military power required to close the Strait and hobble the economies of the Gulf states is orders of magnitude smaller than the military power needed to stop it.

by jltsiren

3/31/2026 at 5:01:14 PM

The US government were surprised that they closed the strait btw. Let’s not rewrite history to make this all sound planned and foreseen when it clearly was not.

Also currently Iran is looking stronger not weaker tbh. The Americans have really fucked it all up.

by jjtwixman

3/31/2026 at 5:57:59 PM

I have heard numerous people make this assertion when every single wargaming exercise has always predicted the closing of the straight. I don't understand where this is coming from.

When you say Iran is looking stronger I think you mean in some kind of relative expectation game in the media sense rather than a real hard power sense.. I would encourage you to look at the latter instead

by redwood

3/31/2026 at 5:00:27 PM

Weakened Iran is not a given outcome. It's a possible outcome. As for Gulf players, the feel suckered by Trump now. The saudis are begging for Trump to finish the job exactly because they are afraid he won't.

by actionfromafar

3/31/2026 at 5:20:25 PM

Iran's relationhip to Russia is in no way strategic to EU. Overall trade between Russia and Iran is 1/400th of that of Russia <-> China trade. Breaking the relationship now would not lead to any noticeable effect on Ukraine war. Russia manufactures geran drones itself. And you will not bomb technology/knowledge transfers away anyway. Vast majority of the materials for Russia's war come from China and the rest of the world, incl. USA and Europe.

What is a complete strategic failure though is EU's support for Israel's impunity that created this war, which will negatively effect all of the EU. There should have been severe sanctions and travel bans on all Israelis long time ago, to force their government to act better. Economic losses this shithole country caused to the EU, will not be offset by any benefits Israel's<->EU trade could create for a looooong time.

by megous

3/31/2026 at 8:05:19 PM

The EU should have attacked Iran the moment Iran started providing defensive assistance to Russia. Initially it wasn't know how that they gave them but explicit shipments of drones. That would have been the moment to pounds but of course the EU did not have the strength to act in that moment. That weakness unfortunately persists but it will not forever. And in time, oncr strengthened again, the EU will be able to act where needed.

If you think this war is somehow negatively impacting the EU you're being very short sighted. Do you realize the level of impunity the IRGC has traditionally operated with in europe? Only the mass murderer of the Iranian civilians in January initiated a slow wake up call for europe. Still only a service level wake up call unfortunately

by redwood