Trump’s Plan To Pull U.S. Troops From Europe Is Good For Everyone, And America Most Of All
Removing U.S. forces from Germany is a move that truly puts America first. The president should ignore his critics and follow through on his promise.The advocates of enforced age verification promise safe and secure technologies that protect user privacy.
Age verification mechanisms have, they insist, developed sufficiently, users need not fear, and skeptics’ arguments are relics of a bygone time. The newest security protocols, they argue, have rendered the privacy and cybersecurity concerns once attached to age verification outdated.
But promises of what can, theoretically, be done by public policy often founder when implemented — when practical, technological, and human constraints mount a counteroffensive against the best-laid plans of academics’ white papers.
If privacy is to be forfeited, the citizenry can demand evidence that their sacrifice will yield significant benefits, but the data provided so far gives little assurance.
The claims of robust security can be dispensed with: Age verification services routinely succumb to hacks, data breaches, leaks, and sloppy data-management practices. These failures publicize users’ government-issued documentation and other personal information.
The latest case study from the European Union lends no assistance to the advocates of age verification.
Only hours after Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission, announced the EU’s new age verification platform, soon to be made available — and mandatory — to the continent, the app proved rotten.
Security consultant Paul Moore, as reported by Politico, claimed to have hacked the app in under two minutes. He found in the application myriad deficiencies, including one that enabled users to evade the verification process altogether. The EU repaired its code, but Moore quickly dismantled the updates.
The EU has stumbled, joining a lengthy list of compromised verification platforms. Count among their number Outabox, AU10TIX, and two third parties employed by Discord. Add to these a breach of IDMerit, which alone compromised 1 billion records of personal data.
In March, hundreds of security and privacy academics signed a letter “call[ing] for a moratorium on [age verification] deployment plans” — at least “until the scientific consensus settles on the benefits and harms” of the technologies in question.
The manifest dangers of age verifications remain unresolved, even as regulators rush to enact mandates that would precondition access to everyday digital services on the user’s willingness to give up sensitive information about himself to vulnerable digital databases.
“Two critical issues have not been addressed: whether age assurance is efficacious and what the potential damages to general security and privacy are,” the letter reads.
Besides the privacy failings, the letter raises another inconvenient question: the efficacy of age-verification regimes. If privacy is to be forfeited, the citizenry can demand evidence that their sacrifice will yield significant benefits, but the data provided so far gives little assurance.
RELATED: The FBI should get a warrant before reading your messages

The implementation of the Online Safety Act in the United Kingdom was met with a rush of British users resorting to virtual private networks, which allowed them to circumvent the age verification process.
Australia attempted to bar minors from major social media platforms, instituting age verification to effect the mandate. And yet, according to the findings of the Molly Rose Foundation, “three fifths (61%) of [12- to 15-year-olds] who previously held accounts on restricted platforms continue to have access to one or more active accounts.” Moreover, seven in 10 children called it “easy” to dodge the law.
Children are by nature troublemakers and hell-raisers. They carry these qualities — at once endearing and enraging — into the digital world. The government cannot ensure that children remain safe online, because it cannot love or know children as parents can, nor can it monitor children’s operations in the digital world.
Age verification is sold to credulous legislators as the one-size-fits-all fix for a world populated by innumerable young people, diverse in their abilities, proclivities, desires, and weaknesses. As extant age verification mandates demonstrate, noncompliance is, quite literally, at the fingertips of minors enterprising enough to best the regulatory requirements they confront.
No government knows enough about any given child or what he does every day to parry his every thrust. Once more, the responsibility comes home to parents, who must raise and protect their children as vigorously in the digital world as in the physical one.
From one vantage, it seems logical to support enforced age verification. But the technological and human facts of the case reveal the policy’s manifest dangers and scant chances of success.
Traditional child-protection standards lodge primary responsibility for children’s formation and well-being in the family — with parents. The digital world is novel, but human nature is eternal. Even in the digital world, the remedy is to be found at kitchen tables, not in legislatures.
Liberals around Europe are raising their glasses in celebration after seeing the results of the election in Hungary on Sunday.
With nearly 99% of the votes counted, Viktor Orbán's Fidesz party had secured only 55 of the 199 seats in the Hungarian parliament, bringing Orbán's 16-year stint as prime minister to an end despite an endorsement last week from President Donald Trump.
'Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism.'
"He is a true friend, fighter, and WINNER, and has my Complete and Total Endorsement for Re-Election as Prime Minister of Hungary — VIKTOR ORBÁN WILL NEVER LET THE GREAT PEOPLE OF HUNGARY DOWN," Trump wrote Tuesday.
Tisza, the party led by Orbán's former underling Peter Magyar, managed to secure 138 seats. Our Homeland Movement, a conservative nationalist party, won six seats.
Tisza's supermajority — won in an election in which approximately 77.8% of eligible voters participated — will enable Magyar and his party to alter the country's constitution and possibly undo the Fidesz party's legacy.
Tisza's manifesto reportedly advocates for a more pro-EU, pro-NATO approach and commits to expediting Hungary's embrace of the euro as its official currency.
Liberal leaders in Europe were apparently ecstatic over the end of Orbán's rule and his Christian, nationalist, "migrant-free, pro-family" agenda — an agenda that delivered domestic results that prompted the European Union to deny Hungary billions of euros in funding.
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, whom a recent survey showed had the lowest approval rating among 24 democratically elected world leaders, characterized the result as a "heavy defeat" for "right-wing populism," reported Deutsche Welle.
RELATED: Trump lashes out at crumbling NATO alliance following 'frank' closed-door meeting

"Hungary has sent a very clear signal against right-wing populism across the whole world. In that respect, yesterday was ... a good day," said Merz. "This demonstrates that our democratic societies are evidently much more resilient to Russian propaganda and further external interference in such elections."
Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the EU Commission, stated, "Hungary has chosen Europe. Europe has always chosen Hungary. A country reclaims its European path. The Union grows stronger."
French President Emmanuel Macron said that "France welcomes the victory of democratic participation, the Hungarian people's commitment to the values of the European Union, and Hungary's commitment to Europe."
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who threatened Orbán on March 5, also celebrated Tisza's rise to power. "Ukraine has always strived for good-neighborly relations with every European country, and we are ready to advance our cooperation with Hungary. Europe and every European nation must strengthen; millions of Europeans yearn for cooperation and stability."
The Orbán government angered the European liberal establishment in part with its rejection of LGBT cultural imperialism, its refusal to implement the EU's radical migration policies, and its refusal to "fulfill Ukraine's demands."
Magyar said on Facebook that he will "work for a free, European, functional and humane Hungary in the next four years."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
A kooky segment by a team of radio hosts turned awkward when they were confronted by a Catholic interviewer.
Three radio hosts performed in a "rage room" recently and were seen smashing statues of both Jesus and Mary in what was meant to be a comical segment showcasing the stress-relieving benefits of participating in the group activity.
'That would be inappropriate.'
"We had a 'Rage Room' because we were beating the blue out of the Monday," said Eva De Roo, a host from Studio Brussel in Belgium.
"People could text us, like, 'I have a really a blue Monday because my car broke and everything,' and [we say], 'Okay, we'll smash something for you,'" the host continued as her colleagues chuckled.
However, reporter Colm Flynn — from the EWTN Global Catholic Network — was interested to find out whether the hosts were willing to smash statues of religious figures that represent other faiths.
"I know you laugh, but do you think that for many listeners, they would find that so deeply offensive to take a bat and to smash Jesus into pieces?"
"That's a very good question," host Sam De Bruyn replied.
"I think in Belgium, not really. We're not a very religious country."
De Bruyn also qualified the sketch by saying all the statues they smashed were "already broken."
That's when Flynn turned the tables.
RELATED: Parthenope's Revenge

"Let me ask you this: If you were doing the video again, would you smash a symbol of the prophet Muhammad?"
De Bruyn replied, "That is a very dangerous one," before De Roo jumped in.
"No, because that would be inappropriate," she claimed, noting that there are many Muslims in Belgium.
Flynn said, "There are Christians, too. I know the pope visited Belgium recently."
De Roo and colleagues then clarified that they thought the stunt was okay because they were raised in the "Christian tradition."
With the hosts floundering, the reporter jumped to the third host, Dries Lenaerts, and asked if he would smash a Star of David.
RELATED: Satan is real — whether his depraved fashion-world followers believe it or not

"Uhh, I wouldn't do it. I wouldn't do it," Lenaerts quickly replied.
De Bruyn said being raised Catholic gave the group more leeway to perform such an act and that it would be harder to do so about a religion "you know nothing about."
The reporter, who revealed that he covers religion for major networks, did not let the group off the hook.
"You see that hypocrisy: Jesus Christ statue, smash it in two, but [you] never [see it] for Muhammad or for anything to do with the Jewish faith."
The hosts, specifically De Bruyn, went on to defend their actions by describing their publicly funded audience as "very alternative" and "not "very religious in any way."
However, De Roo soon jumped in to apologize, said the hosts did not think about the activity very much beforehand, and claimed that any offense they cause to listeners is often discussed on the air.
Broadcaster VRT Studio Brussel later issued another apology for the video, saying the company "misjudged the 'Blue Monday' sketch."
Spokeswoman Yasmine Van der Borght said the team apologized for what was "intended to be a humorous action, and they have underestimated how sensitive religious symbols can be. They understand that this was hurtful to some people and would make different choices today."
The apology concluded, "VRT believes it's important that all of its employees show respect for every religion. We are not concerned with comparing religions, but with dealing with everyone's beliefs with care."
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
President Donald Trump demanded over the weekend that NATO members, Pacific region allies, and even China help the United States clear the Strait of Hormuz — through which maritime traffic has ground to a halt due to the ongoing threat of Iranian missile and drone strikes — and "make sure that nothing bad happens there."
Trump noted that "this should have always been a team effort, and now it will be."
'Not a simple task.'
The response was less enthusiastic than Trump had apparently hoped, with some nations rebuffing the invitation and others kicking their decisions down the road.
"There are some countries that greatly disappointed me," Trump told reporters during an event at the White House on Monday. "What does surprise me is that they're not eager to help."
Fewer than 24 hours later, Trump unpacked his disappointment on Truth Social, noting that "the United States has been informed by most of our NATO 'Allies' that they don’t want to get involved with our Military Operation against the Terrorist Regime of Iran, in the Middle East, this, despite the fact that almost every Country strongly agreed with what we are doing, and that Iran cannot, in any way, shape, or form, be allowed to have a Nuclear Weapon."
"I am not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need," continued the president.
RELATED: Joe Kent resigns from Trump admin, says Israel forced US into Iran conflict

After noting that Iran's leadership and key defenses "are gone," Trump said, "We no longer 'need,' or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID! Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!"
'You will lose the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, which is the US nuclear umbrella.'
Trump's latest criticism of NATO comes just weeks after the alliance's secretary general, Mark Rutte, told his European colleagues, "If anyone thinks here again that the European Union, or Europe as a whole, can defend itself without the U.S., keep on dreaming. You can’t. We can’t. We need each other."
Rutte said that without the U.S., European nations would need to each beef up their defense spending to 10% and build out their nuclear capability.
"In that scenario, you will lose the ultimate guarantor of our freedom, which is the U.S. nuclear umbrella. So hey, good luck," added the NATO secretary general.
Despite Rutte's reminder about Europe's reliance on America and Trump's threat on Sunday that NATO would face a "very bad future" if members didn't assist, numerous NATO members and U.S. allies farther afield declined Trump's invitation to commit forces in the Persian Gulf.
Kaja Kallas, vice president of the European Commission and the European Union's foreign policy chief, told reporters on Monday that officials want to maintain their focus on Ukraine and that where Iran is concerned, their "focus is de-escalation and also freedom of navigation."
While acknowledging the impact of the conflict and Iran's ballistic blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, Kallas stressed, "This is not Europe's war — this situation in the region."
Kallas noted further that the EU has Operation Aspides underway in the Red Sea — a military operation aimed at safeguarding merchant and commercial vessels — but that it won't cover the strait as "there was no appetite from the Member states to do that."
Stefan Kornelius, a spokesman for the German government, stated, "The government will not participate in this war," reported Deutsche Welle. "This war has nothing to do with NATO; it is not NATO's war."
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius echoed this sentiment on Monday, stating, "It is not our war; we did not start it. We want diplomatic solutions and a swift end, but additional warships in the region will likely not contribute to that."
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said in an address on Monday that "we have to reopen the Strait of Hormuz to ensure stability" but that it "is not a simple task."
Emphasizing that the U.K. will "not be drawn into the wider war," he noted that Britain is working with European allies on a "viable, collective plan that can restore freedom of navigation in the region as quickly as possible."
While reluctant to send warships, the U.K. is reportedly planning to send mine-hunting drones to help reopen the strait.
French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday, "We are not party to the conflict and therefore France will never take part in operations to open or liberate the Strait of Hormuz in the current context," reported Reuters.
'We won't be dragged into any war of choice.'
"We are convinced that once the situation has calmed down — and I deliberately use this term broadly — once the situation has calmed down, that is to say, once the main bombing has ceased, we are ready, along with other nations, to assume responsibility for the escort system," added Macron.
RELATED: 'Die in your rage': Islamist attacks and murder plots are quickly adding up

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk reportedly indicated that the conflict was none of Warsaw's business, stating his government "does not plan any expedition to Iran, and this does not raise any doubts on the part of our allies."
Finland's Foreign Minister Elina Valtonen told Euronews that "NATO is indeed a defensive alliance, and we won't be dragged into any war of choice."
"We of course have a collective interest — and I should say not only within NATO — but as the world, to have the oil flowing, to de-escalate, and that is certainly something we are calling for," added Valtonen.
Anita Anand, Canada's foreign affairs minister, said that Iran's blockade was unlawful but also backed Prime Minister Mark Carney's claim that the joint U.S.-Israeli strikes appear to violate international law.
Anand said further that there's been no formal discussion among NATO members about Trump's request, stating, "To our knowledge a request has not been made to NATO for the type of assistance that is being requested," reported the Globe and Mail.
Some allies outside of NATO similarly poured cold water on the prospect of a coalition of the willing.
Australian Transport Minister Catherine King, for instance, said her country "won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz."
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi reportedly told lawmakers on Monday that her nation had no plans to send warships to the Persian Gulf.
Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!
Late last month, Elon Musk’s X.com launched a landmark legal challenge against a $140 million fine issued by the European Commission last December under the Digital Services Act, an EU censorship law. The case was filed at the General Court of the EU, which hears high-stakes challenges to EU regulatory and enforcement actions.
The commission claims the fine, the first to be issued under the DSA, was for alleged transparency and procedural breaches, which X denies. But the real reason the company was targeted is clear: X is a free-speech platform, and Elon Musk refuses to implement online censorship in the EU and around the world.
This case is the first-ever challenge to Europe’s bid to become a global censor. The outcome matters deeply for the free-speech rights of billions of people around the world.
This case, which ADF International proudly supports, underscores the grave threat the DSA poses to free speech. The law, which took effect in 2024, requires “very large online platforms” — such as X, Meta, and Google — that operate in or are accessible from the EU and have more than 45 million monthly users to remove so-called illegal content.
“Illegal content” takes its meaning from a host of speech-restrictive laws across EU countries, including Germany’s ban on insulting a politician. The law also requires platforms to “mitigate” so-called “systemic risks,” such as “negative effects” on “civic discourse,” “electoral processes,” and “gender-based violence.”
Codes of conduct have also been added to the legislation regarding “disinformation,” “hate speech,” and guidelines on electoral processes and the protection of minors, resulting in 153 pages of additional regulations that were never voted on. Platforms face massive fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover for noncompliance with the DSA and can even be suspended in the EU.
The vague terms used in the legislation and codes of conduct are extremely broad and lack precise legal definitions, meaning they are ideal tools for the commission to censor disfavored views. And the commission’s reach extends far beyond Europe.
A recent report from the House Judiciary Committee showed that Big Tech platforms face immense pressure from the commission to set their global content moderation rules to censorial DSA standards. This means the EU law is censoring speech not just in Europe, but also in the United States and around the whole world.
The case of Finnish parliamentarian Päivi Räsänen demonstrates what DSA censorship will look like in practice. After six years of criminal prosecution, Päivi is awaiting a verdict from the Supreme Court of Finland for tweeting a Bible verse. She was prosecuted under the “War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity” section of Finland’s criminal code. Under the DSA, censorial laws like this will become the global baseline.
Since Elon Musk bought Twitter (now X) and turned it into a free-speech platform, Brussels has been clear about its hostility toward the platform. Former European Commissioner Thierry Breton issued a stark warning in 2023, stating: “You can run but you can’t hide. … Fighting disinformation will be legal obligation under #DSA. … Our teams will be ready for enforcement.” Former commission Vice President for Values and Transparency Vera Jourová added: “Twitter has attracted a lot of attention, and its actions and compliance with EU law will be scrutinized vigorously and urgently.”
RELATED: Out of order: Courts shouldn’t rule based on ‘trust us’ science

It’s clear why the commission gave X.com the first-ever DSA fine last December. It was sending a message to all Big Tech platforms about what will happen to platforms that refuse to accept censorship.
That is what makes X.com’s legal challenge so important — the company is fighting for the right of citizens around the world to freely express their views online. In this case, the social media giant is challenging the centralized powers given to the commission by the DSA, which it argues violate its right to due process and are contrary to the rule of law.
The commission is able to set the rules for content moderation, set up the infrastructure, launch investigations, and issue penalties under the DSA, all with no meaningful oversight. If this is allowed to stand, the EU will have the unchallenged ability to police the global public square, with dire consequences for online free speech.
Now the court has an opportunity to hold the commission to account. An oral hearing is expected in the case, potentially by the end of 2026, and the subsequent ruling will affect how all Big Tech platforms are moderated by the DSA. X.com is arguing for the fine to be withdrawn, and if the basis for the fine is found not to be compliant with other EU laws, specific provisions in the legislation could be annulled.
This case is the first-ever challenge of the commission’s bid to become a global censor. The outcome matters deeply for the free-speech rights of billions of people around the world.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the late supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, did not die of old age. The United States killed him, and that fact matters.
Iran’s regime has advertised its project for decades: repression at home, terror abroad, and “Death to America” as a rallying cry. It has crushed dissidents, jailed and killed its own people, and waged proxy war across the region — all while murdering Americans and targeting U.S. interests. Western “countermeasures” rarely stopped the bleeding. At best they slowed Tehran down. At worst, they bought the regime time, money, and legitimacy.
Much of Europe is already governed by technocratic managers, and the spirited element of the people is being shoved to the margins. That arrangement can’t last.
The predictable scolding began almost immediately. As soon as the joint operation was launched, leaders of some of America’s most important European allies — the United Kingdom, France, and Germany — urged restraint and appealed to “international law.” Even figures associated with Alternative for Germany, an anti-immigration party on the right, echoed that posture. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen called for “de-escalation” and an emergency U.N. Security Council meeting, and she convened commissioners for internal deliberations.
Iran may sit far from Europe’s coastlines, but its damage doesn’t. For decades, Tehran’s destabilization has pushed drugs, terrorism, and illegal migration across borders and into Europe. The regime has executed protesters, imprisoned dissidents, funded terror proxies, and even helped fuel a war on Europe’s own continent.
Western Europe’s governing class answers that threat with a familiar reflex: convene international bodies, issue statements, and restart negotiations that have already failed. That approach has produced little more than delay. European leaders and institutions have not mounted a serious response to Iran’s campaign. In many cases, they have not mounted much of any response at all.
This procedural faith sounds alien to MAGA ears. What’s easy to forget is that it’s also alien to Europe’s own history.
Operation Epic Fury has exposed something deeper than policy disagreement. It has exposed Europe’s postwar loss of thymos.
Plato used thymos to describe “spiritedness” — the part of the soul that burns with courage, indignation, and honor. In modern terms, it’s courage disciplined by moral judgment. It isn’t frenzy or bloodlust. Properly ordered, it’s the moral force that refuses humiliation, resists the inversion of good and evil, and defends what is sacred.
Europe’s warriors of old endured lives marked by hardship: hunger, plague, invasion, civil war, and exile. Their spirits pressed deep into theology, philosophy, science, exploration, and statecraft, expanding the frontier of human knowledge. The European peoples, formed in principalities, kingdoms, and states, took control of their destiny, much as President Trump has implored the Iranian people to do.
RELATED: Do they hate Trump — or do they just hate America?

European warriors made plenty of strategic blunders throughout their history, but they realized that building up forces was the key to fighting the powerful and obtaining power. At one time, nearly all of Europe underestimated Napoleon, but they did not assume that conferences alone would restrain him. Coalitions eventually formed because countering a powerful threat required a decisive response, and the Congress of Vienna only mattered because armies first checked imperial ambition.
Europe learned through blood that force underwrites order. Today, however, its leaders often speak as if procedural appeals alone can substitute for resolve.
The European Union has become an institution that manages, regulates, and adjudicates — not one that protects nations or Western civilization as a whole. The peace in postwar Europe depends on American security guarantees and nuclear deterrence rather than on institutions like the EU and the United Nations Human Rights Council.
This project’s main “success” is the coordinated dissemination of the belief that technocratic governance is a sufficient framework to sustain civilization. The decline of civil society across Europe, however, and the responses of some of its leaders to U.S. military action in Iran indicate the spurious nature of that belief.
Europe’s thymos has been effectively sedated by procedure and managed decline, but President Trump may be on his way to reviving it.
International law is not self-enforcing, and the international system depends upon sovereign states willing to act. Absent enforcement, resolutions accumulate into a paper fortification. The Islamic Republic has endured decades of censure from international bodies while expanding its influence and repressing its citizens. The U.N. Human Rights Council, for instance, puts its faith in strongly worded letters that have failed to achieve any positive outcome for Europe.
By contrast, America’s Operation Epic Fury rests upon a simple premise: Regimes that kill Americans, arm proxies, launder narcotics revenue, and pursue nuclear capability cannot be indefinitely managed by elegantly crafted communiqués.
Crucially, the U.S. strikes are targeting the ideological Islamist infrastructure in Iran, a problem that Europe has struggled to confront within its own borders.
In parts of Western Europe, the rise of leftist and Islamist coalitions is undeniable. In the U.K. and elsewhere, such demographic realities are almost certainly why the ayatollah’s death is being mourned instead of being celebrated. Last weekend, after news of Khamenei’s death broke, former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn joined hundreds of pro-Iran protesters in London carrying banners of the ayatollah.
Europe’s decision to throw open its doors to mass migration in 2015 signaled more than a policy preference. It revealed a self-conception: Europe increasingly sees itself as an economic zone, not a civilization with borders and obligations. In that worldview, spirited self-preservation becomes morally suspect. A continent that won’t defend itself can’t credibly lecture America about saving others — or help America do it.
Americans shouldn’t expect allies to endorse every U.S. action without question. Friendship doesn’t require cheerleading. It does require moral seriousness. Europe’s leaders shouldn’t treat righteous indignation at injustice as “extremism,” and they shouldn’t confuse decisive action with warmongering or reckless escalation.
A civilization that suppresses thymos will not endure. Much of Europe is already governed by technocratic managers, and the spirited element of the people is being shoved to the margins. That arrangement can’t last.
RELATED: ‘Boots on the ground’ would turn Iran into Iraq on steroids

Under President Trump, the United States retains, however imperfectly, a measure of civilizational confidence. We still believe that sovereignty, national defense, and the protection of citizens are legitimate goods. Europe’s thymos has been effectively sedated by procedure and managed decline, but President Trump may be on his way to reviving it.
NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte voiced support for the strikes on Iran, declaring that key allies stand “all for one, one for all” amid our adversary’s widening missile retaliation. Such language hints at a remembered instinct — an older European reflex of solidarity not as bureaucratic coordination but as shared resolve and the will to act. There are also glimmers of hope in last Sunday’s E3 statement, in which Britain, France, and Germany said they were ready to take steps to defend their interests in the region.
Operation Epic Fury will be debated for years to come in the language of strategy and geopolitics. But beneath those arguments lies a more enduring question about the character of civilizations: Do they still believe that evil should be confronted? Do they still possess the spirited confidence that is required when words have failed?
Europe’s history is not one of defaulting to procedure. It is a civilizational resolve formed through centuries of trial. The same continent that produced parliaments and cathedrals also produced men willing to stand at Vienna’s gates and refuse surrender. Its Christianity did not preach passivity before tyranny. It taught that love may demand resistance.
Praising Athens’ war against Sparta, Pericles famously said:
For we are lovers of the beautiful in our tastes and our strength lies, in our opinion, not in deliberation and discussion, but that knowledge which is gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection. And they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on that account shrink from danger.
Europe must choose whether it will regain its strength or allow the civilization it built to disappear forever.
Editor’s note: A version of this article appeared originally at the American Mind.