TRUMP THẢ NỔI HORMUZ, TUNG TỐI HẬU THƯ LÀM RUNG CHUYỂN NATO

Welcome back to "New Intellect," I'm Lê Minh. Ladies and gentlemen, on January 1, 1944, Iranian President Peshehian declared that his country was ready to end the war with the United States, but required assurances. Even President of the United States Donald Trump said that we will leave very soon, possibly in two or three weeks. Whatever happens in the Strait of Hormuz, we will have nothing to do with it anymore. Other countries can take care of themselves if they want gas or oil from the Persian Gulf. It's a disappointment for Trump, as he witnessed the results of America's alliance test through the conflict in Iran. In recent days, countries under U.S. security guarantees such as Spain, Italy, France, and Switzerland have closed their airspace to the U.S. military. Poland even refused to provide missile systems to the United States. Meanwhile, prior to Trump's statement, the UAE signaled its readiness to join a multinational force aimed at reopening the Strait of Hormuz. When we put these pieces together, we see a much broader picture. The Iran conflict is becoming a true test of the Western alliance model. principle of burden sharing and the question of who will pay for global energy security. Join us today to explore in this video. The first thing that must be made absolutely clear is that Iran signaling its desire to halt the war does not mean it is surrendering. President Pezeshkian's statements indicate that Tehran is attempting to open a political exit door. but still wanted to preserve a bit of dignity. Pezeskian said Iran has the will to end the conflict, provided that essential conditions are met. especially the necessary assurances to prevent the recurrence of aggressive actions. This is the language of one who has felt the pressure too great to endure indefinitely, yet still bargains for the conditions of the postwar era. It also indicates that Iran is no longer fully in control of the escalation process. And they still feared another strike from the United States. But if Iran signals a desire for an exit, Trump is turning that exit route into a larger bargaining chip. His statement indicates that Washington does not regard a diplomatic settlement as an essential precondition for ending the war. According to Trump's logic, the U.S. needs only to strike until Iran is weakened enough that it cannot soon acquire nuclear weapons. Then they can leave. And this approach is vastly different from the mindset of war-driven order reconstruction that the United States previously pursued in Iraq. Afghanistan under the previous presidential administrations. It is close to a punitive model aimed at disabling, rendering the opponent unable to threaten for a sufficiently long period. Then falling onto the battlefield before a battle turns into a trench ditch, isn't that right? This is precisely how Trump tries to maintain two images at once: a decisive president taking strong action, but not a detached president embroiled in an endless war. However, the sharpest part of Trump's speech was the message regarding Hormuz. When he said that countries wanting wealth should go to the strait and take care of themselves, He is not only talking about military aspects, but also about money, interests, burdens, and the strategic hypocrisy of the allies. Trump is turning Hormuz into a real-world test of the principle of shared responsibility for common benefit. Yet NATO has been shouting for decades, but rarely had to answer with blood, money, and political will on a vital maritime route. And what is becoming evident is the clash between two models of thinking. The first model is Trump's. Transaction, mutual benefit, reciprocity—those who gain must also share the cost. And the second model is that of most of Europe, seeking stability and wanting open sea routes. Wants to reduce chaos in the energy market, but does not want to follow Washington's military agenda. And precisely in the gap between those two models, Trump clearly saw the pre-existing European security model. And to understand why Trump is exerting strong pressure precisely at this moment, we must also look at the reality facing Europe. That is, they are being harmed by the war in Iran in a very tangible way. Media reports indicate that EU energy ministers had to coordinate their response due to the Iran war significantly disrupting oil and gas markets. The EU is preparing for the possibility of prolonged disruptions, considering the restoration of some emergency measures previously used during the energy crisis. During the 2022 war in Ukraine, prices for heating in Europe had already risen by more than 70% since the outbreak of the war. The EU is particularly concerned about diesel and aviation fuel, as these refined products are more vulnerable to disruptions caused by strikes. In other words, economically speaking, Europe is by no means immune to the energy crisis; it is being severely hit by soaring energy bills. Import tariffs, import costs, and the risk of weakening industrial competitiveness. However, militarily and politically, Europe did not follow Washington. Since mid-March, Casa Carlos has told Reuters that no one has been willing to put their people at risk in the Strait of Hormuz. Europe must find a diplomatic solution to keep the strait open, in order to avoid crises in water, fertilizers, and energy. This is a very important statement, as it reveals the essence of Europe's position. They do not deny the danger, nor do they deny the vital importance of foam. Yet they refused to step into the level of accepting life-threatening risks, escalation risks, and domestic political risks that a military campaign would require. Europe wants a solution that, ideally, would not require it to become a direct party shedding blood to implement it. If that were all, the story would have merely remained at the level of differing viewpoints; but by the end of March, that difference transformed into concrete action. Major news agencies such as Reuters have also confirmed that Western Airlines has closed its airspace to U.S. aircraft participating in the Iran campaign. France refused to allow Israeli aircraft carrying U.S. weapons to fly through its airspace. Denied permission for some U.S. military aircraft to land at Sigonella. Reuters described this as a sign of increasingly evident rifts between Washington and its European allies amid growing concerns over the escalating war with Iran. That means Europe is no longer automatically reacting as an extension of American military will. They have begun using airspace sovereignty, bases, and legal procedures to set limits on Washington. This is an extremely important transition. It's not an outright severing of the alliance, but it is a statement that the United States can no longer regard its ally's strategic infrastructure as a given asset. ready for use in any campaign that Washington wishes to launch. From this perspective, one can clearly see the very place where Trump perceived what he has always suspected about Europe. It is a Europe accustomed to living under the American security umbrella, accustomed to benefiting from the order protected by the United States. But when faced with the actual frontline of a real energy shock, they retreat behind soft diplomatic, procedural, and legal language, then proceed to de-escalate tensions gradually. Saying this is not to deny the legitimacy of Europe's reasons, which we indeed recognize as genuine. Democratic governments are always constrained by law, parliament, voters, and the bitter experiences from past conflicts. But in Trump's eyes, all those things ultimately did not change a simple fact that is if Washington has to continually be the sole one willing to bear the risks and enforce measures to maintain global flow, The rest of the alliance is currently surviving based on an asymmetrical security model. One very noteworthy point here is that Europe is not entirely inactive. On March 19, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Japan issued a joint statement saying They are ready to participate in appropriate efforts to ensure safe passage through the energy transition and stable energy markets. They also welcome the release of strategic oil reserves and working with several producing countries to increase output. Europe is trying to contribute in ways it considers acceptable, through market-based solutions. Diplomacy, maintaining a reasonable level of defense readiness, and preparing for the post-war era. However, it is precisely this that reveals their limitations, because such efforts are very different. With Washington directly imposing freedom of navigation by force at the focal point of conflict. That half-hearted approach explains why Trump reacted so intensely. Trump is not only angry because allies are not helping the U.S., but also because they want to keep themselves out of the war. It's precisely this point that lies at the heart of the matter: they want to benefit if the U.S. succeeds. If the oil bubble is reopened, oil prices will drop, fuel prices will fall sharply, and marine freight rates will stabilize again. Europe will benefit greatly. But to achieve this, someone must make the first diplomatic move. entered a zone of military risk. Europe wants that person to remain America, not itself. And that is something Trump no longer accepts. Therefore, he has transformed the swab into a test of strategic morality. The more security consumers use, the more they should pay; it's not fair to keep making Americans pay the taxes forever. And American soldiers performed the most difficult part of the task. But if we stop merely criticizing Europe, we won't see the full picture. The depth of this chessboard. What is currently unfolding is also the regionalization of security responsibilities. This is the reason why the UAE has become a notable link. International media reported that this country has told the United States and its Western allies that it is ready to participate. A multinational naval force to reopen the Sea of Melted Ice, while promoting the idea of exploration An international legal basis for future missions. This is a very clear political signal. Some Gulf countries began contemplating that if Washington withdrew, the region would have to fend for itself. Build a stronger, more robust security architecture for its vital line of operation. This is extremely important. Just mentioned transforming the problem of the U.S. bearing the burden of the world into a story about foam chemistry. The story requires all parties benefiting to step forward and take responsibility for their respective roles. If the U.S. is sending a signal that I won't be here forever. If Europe signals that it doesn't want to enter the fray, then the Gulf region will have no other choice. In addition to calculating strategies, self-reliance, and independently building collective strength to protect their economic lifeline. In other words, Trump is using America's conditional withdrawal to pressure a the process of delegating security responsibilities. And for him, this is not necessarily a failure of American leadership. It's a way of forcing other parties to grow up by making them pay the price for their own benefits. And from here, we can see that the statement made by Iranian President Pesekian suddenly becomes much clearer. Why does Iran say it is ready to halt the war if assured? Because they understand a very important truth. The danger lies in the fact that if the U.S. engages in combat up to a certain threshold and then withdraws, but leaves behind a situation that remains unstable and unresolved, the more determined the Gulf region becomes, the more a hardline alliance will emerge, and a Europe, though not wants to strike but still wants to ensure the flow of trade. In that case, Iran may end up facing a The aftermath of war is even more disadvantageous than the war itself. At that time, they would face many nations, not just the United States. At that point, the problem was no longer about suffering blows from a distant superpower, but rather about being surrounded. surrounded by a new regional security structure aimed at neutralizing the most powerful instrument of coercive pressure of Tê Hiểu Đàn, it is the ability to squeeze the entire sea of foam rubber. Only at this point do we finally understand why the story goes this way. But what we've been discussing so far should not be understood simplistically—that NATO is about to dissolve or that Europe is... Europe betrays America. It is deeper, more realistic, and even more alarming. The thing that is breaking apart It is not the existence of a form of alliance, but the unity of strategic will. On March 31, U.S. Secretary of War Pete Hesed declined to reaffirm the United States' commitment to the matter. 5 NATO, saying the decision lies with Mr. Trump. In the context of European allies refusing to provide support The statement that Iran's war is unfolding in the way Washington wants carries very heavy weight. It made Europeans wonder: if the U.S. can bargain even with the most fundamental principle itself of NATO, will the security umbrella that Europe has relied on for so long still be unconditional? And once But if that umbrella is no longer absolute, Europe has even more reason to be cautious about allowing the U.S. to use it. their infrastructure into wars they do not fully endorse. And this is precisely the cycle. lost trust and became blurred. The U.S. saw Europe not sharing the burden, while Europe saw the U.S. as People are increasingly turning even their allies into trading partners. And at a deeper level, the Iran conflict is laying bare something fundamental. A truth that the West has long avoided for many years. The international order after the Cold War has been maintained not only not only by laws, but also by a more stark reality—that there are always certain countries ready to use force to protect the lifelines of the system, from cargo shipments and energy supplies to military balance. And that country Nobody but the United States. But Trump is saying that model has reached the end of its useful life. It needs to be rewritten. He doesn't accept the fact that the U.S. will forever be stuck doing the dirtiest, least desirable part of the work. The most expensive and dangerous. As for allies, they choose the safer, more ethical, and less internally risky option. And thus we see that Trump is not only demanding that Europe spend more money on defense, as well as In previous years, he was demanding that Europe pay a real price for the security they kept calling upon. And Europe, With every political reflex they possess, they are desperately trying to avoid confronting that moment of reckoning. That is precisely why they do not want to. It's just the Strait of Malacca, the very place where Western-style pre-packaged security models are explicitly named. Anyone who needs that flow must make a decision: either continue relying on the U.S. and accept being lectured by the U.S., transactional, pressured into sharing the heavy burden, or alternatively, stepping out on one's own and taking on that portion oneself. the responsibility that I have been avoiding for many years. And once that question is openly raised, then The old order has already begun to waver. Then, what will the new order in the Middle East look like? Are we being overly optimistic? Please look at this map—it's indeed just a map. strategy. It fairly accurately reflects what Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is currently signaling. That is the oil and gas pipeline running from the Gulf region toward the West, connecting Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and possibly other partners. Arab countries are converging on an energy axis connected to Israel and the Mediterranean, thereby weakening the blow. Iran's oil. If this project were realized on a large scale, it would indeed create a new order. New self-power. The axis of energy and security will tilt more strongly toward the United States, Israel, and部分 of the countries The Gulf Arabs will lose some of their role as gatekeepers of the oil market, while Iran will lose even more. through a kiss. Today, world media also noted that Netanyahu openly mentioned the prospect of oil and gas pipelines running westward across the Arabian Peninsula, through Israel, to regional ports Trung Hai and regarded it as a significant shift that could follow the conflict. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia is boost exports through Yanbu on the Red Sea thanks to the East-West Pipeline, with flow capacity It is nearly at full capacity. This shows that the logic of bypassing the hump has already become a reality in part of this region in the Middle East. And if that structure continues to grow, ladies and gentlemen, Iran will be weakened in seven key strategic blows. especially the ability to threaten the Hormuz Strait and trigger a global energy shock. At that point, Tehran would find it difficult Using the same old pressure level to force the world to believe in oneself. According to that logic, the correlation is indeed correct. Power will shift, but the leadership of the system will remain tilted toward the United States because Washington is the party with the capability. ensuring security, pressuring partners to coordinate, and transforming alternative routes into a long-term regional architecture. So how should one interpret Trump's actions, which appear to involve allowing the haggling to continue before repeatedly issuing ultimatums to Iran? But every time he issues an ultimatum, it's different each time. Is he running out of ideas? whether to confront Iran or not? Actually, Trump is just changing his tactics. The initial phase was about applying strong pressure. to dismantle Iran's most dangerous capabilities. The following passage helps clarify the direct role of the United States and pressures the... The countries benefiting from energy security in the Gulf region must step forward to share responsibility. The goal of Trump It's not about occupying Iran, nor is it about staying to end a post-war situation akin to the previous Iraq. The core objective is to disable Iran's ability to pose a threat, particularly its military capability. including nuclear programs, missiles, or drones. Can provide protection or shielding. granting their nuclear ambitions in the near future. But then again, one must say fairly, America has not yet completely erased Iran from the chessboard. They still possess the capability to deceive, still have the ability to create security costs for the area, and post-war reconstruction are certainly not going to be easy. Therefore, it shouldn't be I mean, the U.S. has finished everything, but it should be said that the U.S. has completed only the part of the task they wanted to carry out. Now the situation is understood in the proper sense: the U.S. has set the table, so whoever benefits must come and clean up the mess. The country. They targeted the main threat, while the rest is about reopening the well, protecting the flow. oil and gas, maintaining maritime stability, and bearing the long-term costs of security. These matters are directly related. Next, Europe, the Gulf countries, and the emerging economies dependent on imported energy. And when Trump said, "Who needs oil can go deal with it themselves," he was exposing the reality that the U.S. does not always wanting to be the one who fights the battle, pays the bill, and cleans up the battlefield at the same time, but in the end always ends up criticized and scolded morally. At this point, today's program would like to take a temporary pause. We kindly invite you to share your personal opinions. Goodbye, and we look forward to seeing you again!