BRUSSELS — European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen wants EU leaders to look into the idea of developing bloc-wide strategic gas reserves amid concerns the continent faces a winter shortage, three diplomats and two EU officials told POLITICO.
Europe’s existing gas storage caverns — which are typically refilled over the course of the year by commercial actors — are running at record lows this year after high summer prices linked to the war in Iran undercut market incentives to restock, leaving the bloc underprepared for winter.
While it wasn’t immediately clear to diplomatic officials what form the reserve idea would take, one senior EU official described it as a long-term measure to cushion the bloc against future supply risks, as countries already do with oil and refined products. The Commission president’s comments came at a major summit of European leaders in Brussels on Thursday.
Documents detailing November plans to revamp the bloc’s gas security architecture, seen earlier this year by POLITICO, include plans to encourage better crisis management by companies. However, they stop short of explicitly endorsing strategic reserves that governments would have to fill to a set level to offset supply shortages, regardless of market conditions.
Countries that typically rely on commercial refilling have already been forced to change tack this year as the limits of the existing model became clear. The Netherlands has moved to subsidize energy purchases, costing it almost €1 billion, while Germany is exploring whether to develop its own strategic stockpile.
A separate Commission proposal to set up an EU-wide mechanism to carry out joint energy purchases was received without enthusiasm by EU leaders on Thursday, two diplomats said.
NATO’s top commander U.S. Gen. Alexus Grynkewich on Monday vowed to block, blunt and break any Russian attack as part of a new “Theory of Victory,” and underlined that alliance troops would fight even if U.S. forces were engaged elsewhere.
Speaking at the Warsaw Security Forum, Grynkewich outlined how the 32-member alliance would respond to an invasion of NATO territory as concerns grow that Russia could be capable of attacking a NATO member by the end of the decade.
“Our alliance exists to preserve peace,” he said, “but let there be no doubt: should war come, we will block, blunt any attack, and then, if it does not cease, we will break the forces conducting aggression against us.”
The rare intervention by the four-star general to discuss a military blueprint underscores NATO’s effort to deter Russia. It is also aimed at sending a message of NATO unity after a grueling year for the alliance, which was rocked by Donald Trump’s threats to annex Greenland and infighting over the U.S.-Israeli war in Iran.
Under the three-part blueprint, NATO would initially use land-based troops — buttressed by air, naval, cyber and space capabilities — to stop an assault, targeting attacking forces and preventing them from seizing territory, Grynkewich said.
NATO would then use sensors and autonomous systems among other capabilities to “overwhelm enemy formations … and their advance,” he said, before using “highly effective precision munitions” and unmanned systems if necessary to “break the [enemy] warfighting system” and “everything that supports” it.
Lithuanian Defense Minister Robertas Kaunas said the theory laid out by Grynkewich “will send a strong message to our adversaries that we are going to defend ourselves.”
NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander Europe said he does “not assess that conflict is imminent or inevitable.” But “we will … ensure any attack against any ally proves utterly futile.”
The speech describes a more forceful response if a foe attacks, but its credibility depends on allies having the forces, infrastructure, and coordination to implement the plan.
Asked whether the plan factored in a scenario where the U.S. was engaged elsewhere, Grynkewich said: “It absolutely does account for that, and in fact, it must.”
Under Trump, the U.S. has sought to refocus its military on other priorities such as the Indo-Pacific, homeland security and the Western Hemisphere. U.S. ambassador to NATO Matthew Whitaker said in Warsaw on Monday that Europe only ranks fourth among Washington’s strategic concerns.
“No one should question the commitment of the United States to this alliance,” Grynkewich argued, but added that “ultimately, it’s a political decision about who’s providing troops where.”
Camille Grand, NATO’s former assistant secretary-general for defense investment, said the plan was “a very deliberate effort” to signal that the alliance would be ready to fight with or without large-scale involvement of U.S. forces.
“For my country, fighting with Russians is with or without Americans,” said a separate senior European defense official, who was granted anonymity to speak freely. “We expect them to come, but if they won’t, we will fight anyway.”
Grand added that the blueprint is also an indication that NATO is ready to take a bolder approach toward Moscow by threatening the destruction of its war machine even deep behind the front lines.
That comes as Moscow sent a letter to NATO last month threatening to use its nuclear arsenal if the alliance tried to isolate its Kaliningrad exclave.
Grynkewich warned that NATO would be ready to respond — even with its nuclear arsenal.
“Should an adversary threaten escalation by saber-rattling, or should one actually decide to escalate during conflict, it will not fracture our alliance,” he said. “We should take comfort in our ability to deliver mass effects and the implicit warning that we could match any enemy move up the escalation ladder.”
BRUSSELS — The EU is facing a winter gas shortage that could leave it scrambling to replace lost energy supplies equivalent to the power used by 12 million homes, according to new reports shared with POLITICO.
The shortfall raises the prospect of a winter of soaring power bills and forced energy saving measures if the bloc fails to find adequate supplies elsewhere.
As the war in Iran continues to disrupt global energy supplies, the EU faces an overall shortfall this winter of up to 14 billion cubic meters of natural gas — around 7% of the bloc’s demand and enough to power between 10 and 12 million European households, according to a report by the Institution for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis, a U.S.-based energy think tank.
Those conclusions are echoed in a key report by a top European body of gas network operators that was presented to national energy officials on Thursday.
Natural gas is used widely to heat Europe’s buildings, power its industry and generate its electricity. But the EU’s gas reserves have fallen to their lowest level for the time of year since records began in 2011, at just above 70%, after high prices made it more attractive for traders to sell gas in the summer rather than store it for later use in the winter.
With gas prices at near-four-year highs and supply constrained due to the U.S.-Israeli war in the Middle East, Europe has limited supply options if the coming winter proves as cold as the last, IEEFA found.
While that doesn’t necessarily mean the bloc will run out of gas, it does mean there could be 7 billion fewer cubic meters of stored gas to draw upon. That could force countries to buy gas at high prices on increasingly volatile global markets, or even require consumers to cut demand if fresh supplies are unavailable.
The EU’s record-low reserves leave the bloc “with less of a buffer” against global supply disruptions, leaving it “vulnerable to price spikes,” Ana Jaller-Makarewicz, IEEFA’s lead European energy analyst, said in a statement. If countries are forced to exhaust stocks this year, that would also leave them with more to refill next year, continuing the feedback loop of low reserves and higher prices, she added.
The same risks were outlined in a 2026-2027 winter supply outlook published Thursday by the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Gas (ENTSO-G), an association of gas operators. The report warns that if imports of liquefied natural gas are limited or even “optimal” in the context of a cold winter, storage levels could fall as low as 11%, a baseline needed for strategic reserves that can’t be easily tapped into.
If countries hope to restore their reserves to 30% by the end of winter — or else face increased exposure to future cold spells — volumes equivalent to 7% of the demand will either have to be curtailed or simply withheld from consumers, ENTSO-G warns.
Part of that pressure comes from a looming EU-wide ban on long-term supply contracts for Russian LNG, due to take effect in January, which will reduce European gas imports by an additional 7 billion cubic meters, according to the IEEFA report. Russian gas has been historically used to offset “swings in demand” over the winter, it said. “Now Europe depends on storage to get through winter.”
To make matters worse, the IEEFA report argues, gas demand over winter has crept up in the past two years, while imports to the bloc have flatlined. That’s left the EU leaning harder on its reserves over the winter period, with net drawdowns rising to 22.6 billion cubic meters in January this year, up from 18.8 billion cubic meters in January 2025 and 17.8 billion cubic meters in January 2024.
The alternative would be to import fresh LNG, a seaborne fuel that the EU increasingly sources from the U.S. But at current prices, importing the lost volumes would cost Europeans an additional €3 billion, a 12% rise over what the same volume would have cost last year, on top of already sky-high prices, according to the report. U.S. LNG production is also near full capacity, meaning those additional imports would further squeeze supply, Jaller-Makarewicz told POLITICO.
To some, a rise in prices is more likely. While ENTSO-G’s tight market scenario assumes a “global deficit” that sees available LNG imports into Europe reduced by 20%, Laurent Ruseckas, a senior gas market analyst at S&P Global Energy, argues that reserves can only ever fall so low, “since a rapid drawdown early in winter will drive up prices,” drawing cargoes to Europe from Asia.
“There is not much demand to destroy in Europe,” he added, pointing out that the war in Ukraine already destroyed 20% of the bloc’s industrial demand. “And it didn’t come back.”
At a Monday night rally in Nebraska, President Donald Trump spoke about the Iran war and record-high oil prices, both of which are outraging voters and promise to be deciding factors in the November midterm elections. First the president downplayed the high costs, saying they are “artificial” and “a little bit high.” Then Trump said that by attacking Iran, he was promoting peace.
“It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe,” Trump said to applause. “They can take out a city. Let them take let it let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego. That’s this is a very small price to pay and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with and they might keep going a little long. You know, they always say they have a big threshold for pain. They need it. Let me tell you.”
The New York Times reported “It was not immediately clear what Mr. Trump meant,” but to others, the message was clearly about inciting violence on an American city. Politicians, especially in California, erupted in outrage, at least on social media. San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria posted on X that “San Diego is not collateral damage … Keep our city out of your reckless war talk.” Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass described Trump’s comments as “dangerous,” posting on X that “In the face of irresponsible threats, as Angelenos, we know how to stand together and protect our city.”
California Gov. Gavin Newsom echoed Bass, posting on X that Trump’s comments could be “treasonous” and claimed he is “directing the State Threat Assessment Center to actively monitor the situation in the event that foreign actors interpret the President’s remarks as an invitation to target California.” All three are Democrats but at least one Republican shared the sentiment that Trump’s speech wasn’t harmless.
“As a Navy veteran, I served to protect Americans, not write off American cities as an acceptable price of war,” Jim Desmond, a Republican congressional nominee in a San Diego metro district, posted on X. “Our job is to keep Americans safe, stand up to our enemies, and make sure a threat like that never becomes reality. No American city is expendable, and no American family should ever be treated as collateral damage.”
But on Tuesday, the White House said this was all just a big misunderstanding and the president actually wants to prevent Tehran from taking out a city. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung posted on X that “The media freakout over President Trump’s comments is not rooted in reality. He was clearly stating U.S. cities would have been threatened if a nuclear Iran hadn’t been stopped. America is safer because of the President. Iran has no nuclear, no navy, no air force, and no money.”
Also on Tuesday, it was reported that most families of the six soldiers killed in the deadliest attack of the Iran war would not be attending a major White House event for Gold Star families hosted by Trump.
The Orange Menace, who has notably been sued by women over alleged "affairs" during his current marriage, gave his bag carrier a good once-over and then described her as a "perfect person," where perfect seems to mean her legs.
While musing over television vehicles for Natalie, Diaper Don also offered up Los Angeles and San Diego to Iran as targets for retribution. — Read the rest
The price of diesel fuel is displayed outside of a Shell gas station in Carson, California, on September 22, 2026. | Patrick T. Fallon/AFP via Getty Images
But diesel fuel — the lifeblood of shipping, agriculture, and heavy industry — usually flies under the radar. Its price has surged too, and while truckers and farmers are feeling the initial blow, the rest of the country won’t be far behind.
“Most products in America are shipped along the road via trucks,” Nathan Bomey, a business reporter at Axios, told Today, Explained co-host Noel King. Diesel prices “directly affect their cost of doing business, which then eventually trickles down and affects the consumer.”
On the podcast, Bomey discusses what’s driving the price spike, how quickly it’s going to become a problem for everyday consumers, and whether electric semi trucks could offer a way out.
Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There’s much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get your podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
What is happening with diesel?
There was one major geopolitical event this year that disrupted the entire energy economy, which is the US and Israel attacking Iran. Iran is at the center of the oil economy in some ways, but primarily you have to look at the closure of the Strait of Hormuz and the jockeying over it that has happened in the months since.
Once they closed the strait, it disrupted the entire global energy economy because it handles a substantial portion of the shipping bringing supplies out of the Middle East. That affected diesel prices, gasoline prices, jet fuel prices, and effectively everything based on crude oil.
Who are the people right now that are profoundly freaked out about the cost of diesel?
First off, truckers are freaked out because their cost of doing business is going much higher. Farmers are also freaked out because they’re already facing real pressures from trade wars and things that are out of control, like climate issues, that have caused their costs to go higher.
The price of diesel affecting farmers eventually affects the price they charge, which ultimately gets to the consumer because it ends up costing more to pay for things like an ear of corn.
How stark do you think this might be? In a month or two, do you think I could go down to Walmart and see that something I buy all the time is now a dollar more expensive?
I think the impact is imminent. This flows through very quickly. We’re not talking about months; we’re talking about weeks, if not days, before people will start to notice increases, especially in the grocery aisle. That’s the first place people will notice it because fresh food has to be shipped on a weekly basis. Diesel prices are going to have a big effect on food inflation. This is coming off of several years of food price increases that we experienced in the wake of the pandemic.
We’re also barreling toward the holiday shopping season, which is going to be affected by this as well. If a toy, for example, is made with a resin affected by the cost of crude oil, which also affects the cost of diesel, and then it’s shipped over the road to Walmart in a truck that uses diesel, all of these things add up and will probably lead to higher prices.
We’ve also got an issue with heating oil, which is a fuel used primarily by households in the Northeast to heat their homes. Heating oil, diesel, and all of these oil-based products are caught up in this vortex right now. Ultimately, it is not something the ordinary person can do much about.
Do the industries that rely on diesel have any other options?
There are definitely alternatives to diesel, but in many cases, they cannot be switched to quickly. If you think about the trucking industry, they are invested heavily in big rigs that take products from place A to place B. If you are invested in a truck, yes, you could theoretically switch, but you would be scrapping this huge investment you’ve made. Diesel trucks are not really going anywhere immediately. A lot of times, they’re simply still the best way to get somewhere.
You can switch to rail; railroads are definitely a competitor to trucking, but really only best for certain types of products. There are other types of trucks you can buy. Compressed natural gas or liquid natural gas is an alternative fuel for some trucks, and biodiesel can actually be good. Hydrogen is more of a futuristic thing down the road.
In the short term, there is the possibility of using electric trucks. That is starting to become more realistic. In fact, in recent days, Tesla began major production of the Tesla Semi, an electric semitruck we’ve been waiting for for years. I remember covering this in 2018 when Tesla debuted the semi, and we all thought it was going to be coming out soon.
It has taken nearly a decade for this to finally become a reality in large proportions, but the Tesla Semi is an electric truck that could be an alternative for some. There are other companies making electric trucks too, so that could be viable. But the problem with electric trucks is that the battery is so heavy, making it tough to compete with diesel on shipping heavy items.
It was often joked that when the Tesla Semi first debuted, the very first thing it shipped was a bunch of bags of Cheetos because they were so light and the truck couldn’t handle extra weight. They had a deal with PepsiCo, and it wasn’t ready at the time to ship anything heavy.
It’s a lot better now, but the issue is still how heavy electric truck batteries are, which will make them somewhat limited in capacity. However, we are seeing some demand for the Tesla Semi that indicates it might become more competitive because of the price of diesel.
So when prices are high, generally somebody somewhere is benefiting. Who is it, in this case?
The people benefiting from diesel prices being so high are the refineries, which a lot of people don’t think about much because they’re the middle person in this entire process. They take the crude oil and turn it into usable diesel for a pickup truck, a semi truck, or farming equipment.
The refinery business is experiencing high demand right now, and there’s limited capacity to do this because of issues in Russia, Iran, and other places throughout the world. There’s really nowhere else to do this, and therefore they can charge higher prices. That means higher profits for the refineries.
All of this is shaping up to potentially mean a really ugly winter. One thing I think about a lot is that American consumers will accept a lot of pain. We had Covid — the inflation, and shortages of literally everything. Then we had the war in Ukraine, and prices went up again.
People still keep spending money, even as we predict this one’s going to get bad. People go to the store and spend money, and maybe they gripe, but it’s not like we’re out in the streets. Do you think this coming diesel shock — imminent, in your words — is going to be different?
I’m not an economist, but there is an interesting phenomenon emerging in the economy where consumer sentiment is at rock bottom, but consumer spending is actually really strong. There’s a gap emerging between what people say they feel and what they’re actually doing — in this case, they’re still spending.
Maybe it’s YOLO spending. They’re thinking they don’t have much going for them, so they’re just going to keep spending. I’ve experienced that a little bit, so I don’t blame anybody.
At the end of the day, the numbers matter a little bit more than what people say they feel. But I do think people are going to hit a breaking point because they simply cannot continue this level of spending if the underlying fundamentals of the economy start to collapse.
British counterterrorism police are investigating a possible Iran connection after five men were arrested near a U.S.-used air base on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act.
Police received a call shortly after midnight Sunday about three suspicious vehicles apparently traveling toward RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, England, near the southern Welsh border. Armed officers stopped the vehicles and arrested five men in nearby Whelford on suspicion of explosives offenses.
The men were later also arrested on suspicion of preparing a terrorist act, according to Counter Terrorism Policing.
Investigators are examining whether the suspected plot is linked to Iran, according to multiple reports. A source familiar with the investigation told Reuters that an Iran-linked motive is considered the leading possibility, while Russian sabotage and an Islamist plot are also being examined.
British authorities have not publicly identified a motive or said who they believe was behind the alleged plot.
RAF Fairford has played a role in U.S. military operations during the war with Iran. American B-1 and B-52 bombers have operated from the base, including for strikes on Iranian missile sites.
Iran‘s Revolutionary Guards warned Britain in July against allowing U.S. bombers to operate from Fairford, saying bases used for attacks on Iranian territory could become legitimate targets.
Police established a roughly 400-meter cordon around the vehicles while an explosive ordnance disposal team examined them. About 85 nearby households were advised to evacuate as a precaution.
President Donald Trump said Sunday that U.S. and British authorities had worked together on the investigation and claimed the suspects intended to cause “big damage.”
“We had them under investigation,” Trump told reporters. “They were looking to do big damage to our fort.”
British authorities have not publicly confirmed Trump’s characterization of the alleged plot or said how long the suspects had been under surveillance.
“We are in the early stages of an investigation, and five men remain in custody,” Deputy Assistant Commissioner Vicki Evans, the senior national coordinator for Counter Terrorism Policing, said.
Police said the immediate incident has been contained, but the investigation remains ongoing.
President Donald Trump said Saturday that he rejected Iran’s proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, days after publicly calling on Tehran to reopen the critical shipping route and suggesting a deal could end the seven-month war.
“They made a proposal, but I rejected it,” Trump told reporters outside the White House on Saturday.
Iranian officials unveiled the proposal during a week of diplomacy surrounding the United Nations General Assembly in New York. The plan would reopen the Strait of Hormuz within seven days and pause fighting across the region while the two sides pursued broader negotiations.
In exchange, Tehran sought an end to the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports, sanctions relief and access to frozen Iranian assets, according to reports. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Friday that the proposal had been transmitted to U.S. officials through mediators.
The Wall Street Journal first reported that Trump had rejected the proposal, citing U.S. officials. The newspaper also reported that Trump has told aides he expects the United States to resume bombing Iran after the November midterm elections.
Trump’s rejection comes just days after he used his address before the U.N. General Assembly to demand that Iran reopen the strait while threatening the country with “annihilation” if it failed to reach an agreement with the United States.
“I have a big decision to make,” Trump told world leaders Tuesday, presenting Iran with a choice between a deal that would allow the country to rebuild or further U.S. military action.
Trump also predicted that an agreement with Tehran could come after the midterms, while insisting that the November elections were not influencing his decisions on the war.
Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded from the same U.N. stage Wednesday, saying Tehran remained open to diplomacy but would not negotiate under threat. U.S. and Iranian officials also communicated through Qatari and Pakistani mediators during the gathering, contacts Secretary of State Marco Rubio described as significant despite the limited progress.
The Strait of Hormuz remains one of the world’s most important energy corridors, and its closure during the war has disrupted global oil shipments and contributed to higher energy prices.
Trump appeared to have another idea for the waterway Friday, sharing a map on Truth Social in which the Strait of Hormuz had been relabeled the “TRUMP STRAIT.”
Despite Trump’s rejection of Iran’s latest proposal, indirect diplomacy has not formally ended. An American official described this week’s mediated discussions as “positive and constructive,” while Iranian officials said Saturday they were awaiting an official U.S. response.
For now, however, the proposal that could have reopened the strait within a week appears to have met a considerably shorter response from the president: no.
On Tuesday, Donald Trump stood before the United Nations General Assembly to give a speech in which he made it clear that the United States has now fully abandoned its last remaining fig leaf of decency and morality on the world stage, and has embarked on an imperialist model not seen since the 19th century. Since this was a Trump speech, filled with his usual bombast and braggadocio, it didn’t have quite the shock value it might have carried in the past. But there was a new atmosphere in the room. The world sees America as a threat now, and countries are making new arrangements.
The speech was the worst he’s given, and that’s saying something. Delivered with a bored, desultory tone, the obviously tired president spent 40 minutes rambling on and on with his usual litany of grievances and lies. He made it clear that he sees no limits on his power. Looking directly at the Iranian president, he mused aloud, “I have a big decision to make. Will a deal be made with Iran that lets them rebuild? Or do I annihilate the Islamic Republic? Do I drive them into hell with no chance of survival, and no hope of future greatness for generations?” It was outrageously provocative and insulting, and on Wednesday, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded in his own U.N. speech by describing the Islamic Republic as “victims of terrorism” at the hands of the U.S., while claiming “we are ready for dialogue and diplomacy and negotiations without accepting the language of force.”
In many ways, this was familiar ground for the president. But there was one portion of his speech that brought home just how far gone American foreign policy is today. Speaking of his policy of murder on the high seas in the Caribbean, Trump claimed that drug traffickers, whom he calls “terrorists,” must be “killed, exiled or detained as enemy combatants without the possibility of release, which is what we’re doing.” The Navy is routinely blowing up small boats and killing human beings based upon unproven claims that they are transporting drugs. No U.S. or international law sanctions such a thing. And according to a fact-check by the New York Times, Trump’s assertion that this operation has reduced the flow of drugs by 90% is a blatant lie. It has made no difference at all. The policy is an abomination, and it proves to the world that the United States has abandoned all fealty to the rule of law, not to mention common decency.
(Patrick van Katwijk/Getty Images) United Nations Secretary General Antonio Guterres during the speech of President Donald Trump during the 81st U.N. General Assembly on Sept. 22, 2026.
But that wasn’t all. The president bragged about his actions in Venezuela, declaring that since his incursion in January, which deposed President Nicolás Maduro, Trump has now acquired “more than 60% of the oil in the world . . . it was a war, but it’s perhaps the biggest deal ever made. To the victor belong the spoils. You’ve all heard that.” (The number is actually about 23%, according to the Times.) We have certainly heard that before — from him. The saying is one of his favorite maxims, but it hasn’t been uttered by any other world leader for centuries. He went on to proclaim, “Our actions in Venezuela are proof that the United States will no longer permit threats to America to gain a foothold anywhere in the Western Hemisphere. And if necessary, we will use our unmatched military might to secure the vital national interests of the United States.” What threat Venezuela posed to our “vital national interests” is unclear, unless it means simply having something we want to take.
To say this at the U.N., which was formed to prevent this very behavior, confirms every nation’s worst fears about what the United States has become under Trump. It is crude, antediluvian imperialism, and the assembled dignitaries did not applaud or even respond, although the Iranian and Cuban delegations did walk out when they were threatened.
The U.S is obviously now seen by many as a rogue state, disrespected and disdained by allies and adversaries alike. All you had to do was look at the faces of those in attendance to see it.
But many are realizing, even as Trump besmirched the U.S. and U.N. alike, there is a new “leader of the free world” on the scene.
Mark Carney did not speak at the General Assembly, but he did hold bilateral meetings and a press conference. In the process, the Canadian prime minister gave some measure of hope to those — including many Americans themselves — who see the U.S. as a threat to world peace and yearn for something better.
Mark Carney did not speak at the General Assembly, but he did hold bilateral meetings and a press conference. In the process, the Canadian prime minister gave some measure of hope to those — including many Americans themselves — who see the U.S. as a threat to world peace and yearn for something better. “This is, in many respects, a time that comes once or twice every century,” Carney told the media gathered in New York. “What comes ahead, it’s not wishful multilateralism, which defends only the status quo, nor a cold realpolitik that dismantles the status quo altogether. The alternative that Canada and many others are pursuing is values-based realism, an approach that’s both principled and pragmatic.”
The last few weeks have been productive for Carney, as he led a summit of big money investors and CEOs, partnering with former prime minister Steve Harper to make a bipartisan pitch for opportunities in manufacturing, natural gas, mining and ports on two oceans. Canada has a wealth of resources, including an educated workforce. You know, kind of like America — before it turned itself into a global pariah.
Carney followed his U.N. appearance with a triumphant trip to Europe, where he was greeted like a rock star, obviously appreciated for his bold break with the U.S. that began with a visionary speech in January at the World Economic Forum in Davos that called for a new world order. On Sept. 16, at the meeting of the European Commission, President Ursula von der Leyen called for Canada to become the European Union’s first “associate member.” In making the case, she said, “We must urgently reimagine our partnerships. And build global coalitions for our resilience and democracies.”
In his speech, which was greeted ecstatically by E.U. members, Carney said “Put simply: we’re in a position where we need to pursue calibrated alliances, integrating deeply with those countries who share our values, remaining open-eyed with those who do not.”
That vision was put into action this week in New York, when Carney and leaders from the European Union and six other nations announced “Partners for Multilateralism,” which he described as “a new forum that looks at universal institutions, practical coalitions and capacities that exist outside of governments to build trust and bring people together.” The prime minister explained that they do not see this as an attempt to form consensus among nations, an impossible task, but to instead create a new paradigm for countries “formed around problems rather than geography or size, not as an alternative to multilateralism, but as an instrument of it.”
I have written before that the post-World War II order has run its course. The end of the Cold War, and the burden of being the world’s policeman and guarantor of security, has warped America’s values. It was clearly time for something new, hopefully better, to emerge in the 21st century. But Trump’s bellicose “transactional” approach, aside from the clear corruption and immorality, exacerbates the problem at a time of serious global challenges that include nuclear threats, climate change and the emergence of artificial intelligence. These issues demand cooperation. But Trump prefers to blow everything up — and reap the financial rewards wherever he can find them.
Finally, someone is proposing something new to take its place. It’s still in the very nascent stages, and who knows where it will go? But it’s a serious proposal that seeks to find some stability and predictability in a modern, multi-polar world that requires both cooperation and flexibility.
We can thank Carney for taking the president’s threats to Canadian sovereignty seriously and starting this overdue conversation. He is the man to whom those who believe in freedom and democracy now look for leadership, and we should all be grateful that he has willingly taken on the role.
One of the key arguments for a great power — other than the great power itself wanting to be one — is that they act as a guarantor of stability and the status quo. That is far from the only public or global good. And a great power will ensure that status quo on its own terms and mostly to its own advantage. But if you have any acquaintance with history, you know you can do a lot worse than relative peace and the status quo. Trump’s Iran War has been a bracing illustration of all these realities. Once the great power starts letting things break, those breakages can start multiplying very fast. Eventually you’ll find a new equilibrium, of course. But eventually can take a long time. And again, even a passing acquaintance with history tells us that things can suck without end for extended periods of time.
There’s an interesting New York Times piece from over the weekend that illustrates all these things. We know the outline. But it provides new details. As a knock-on effect of the U.S. war with Iran, the ongoing battle between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi rebel government in Yemen has again become hot. In recent weeks, the Houthis have partly cut off Saudi Arabia’s other path to the ocean. Put simply, the Saudis can export oil through the Strait of Hormuz or the Red Sea. The former has been mostly closed for months. Now the Houthis are in de facto or near control of the second. That’s a big crisis for the Saudis. This is part of the larger U.S.-Iran battle because the Houthis are clients of Iran. And Iran’s core strategy has been to create enough pain for the U.S.’s regional allies that they will force the U.S. to end the war. Remember, each time the U.S. attacks Iran, they respond by attacking the various Gulf emirates.
A Patriot missile is launched as part of the Patriot Air Defense System at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico. | Corbis via Getty Images
This story appeared in Today, Explained, a daily newsletter that helps you understand the most compelling news and stories of the day. Subscribe here.
President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again war with Iran is officially on again. (So recursive is this never-ending conflict, in fact, that I had to search my inbox to confirm I hadn’t already written that sentence!)
On Sunday, the US attacked rocket launchers Sunday on Iran’s Larak Island, claiming the strikes were necessary to prevent Iran from laying mines that could once again disrupt shipping through the Strait of Hormuz. Iran, meanwhile, responded by firing a volley of ballistic missiles at US sites in the United Arab Emirates and Jordan, where they were reportedly intercepted.
The latest skirmish comes after a month of relative peace and quiet, and six months after the war began. You’ll recall that Trump initially said it would last four to five weeks at the very longest.
But in the grand scheme of Trump’s Iran fictions, that optimistic timeline isn’t even the most flagrant. On Sunday night, the president also posted a video that purportedly showed Kharg Island, a central hub of Iran’s oil industry, “being blown to smithereens!!!” The video was, in fact, AI-generated.
The persistence of the war in Iran isn’t merely exhausting for those of us following along at home. As a group of high-ranking military commanders recently warned the Pentagon, the drawn-out conflict could also make America less safe by limiting the military’s ability to respond to threats in other parts of the world.
That unusual warning — first reported over the weekend by the Washington Post — suggested that the war in Iran is tying up ships and surveillance planes that the US needs elsewhere. Several top military leaders explicitly warned that the war had forced them to give up resources they needed to protect the US itself.
None of this means we’re defenseless, of course. But the war in Iran is taking up a lot of bandwidth. And should another conflict break out anywhere else on earth…the US and its allies could feel it.
One general warned the Pentagon that, without more resources, he could be forced to choose between protecting Israel and the US from ballistic missile attacks. And the Navy just moved its only dedicated aircraft carrier in the Pacific to the waters near Iran. “We are really robbing Peter to pay Paul,” one military expert told Vox in late February, even before we had any idea how long the war would last.
One link for later
➨ Ditch the doorbell camera. More than 62 percent of respondents in a recent US News survey said they had an outdoor security camera at home. But there’s not much evidence that those cameras reduce crime — and they can damage your relationship with your neighbors.
Before you go…
Did you know…that the known world basically ended around 1200 BCE? A number of sophisticated civilizations collapsed at the same time, probably due to some combination of prolonged drought, earthquakes, migration, war and political instability.
Today’s trivia: What was the name of Japan’s capital city before it was renamed Tokyo? (You can find this and other brain puzzles in Vox’s daily crossword. Look for the answer in tomorrow’s edition.)
Yesterday’s trivia: Last week we asked you for the name of the athletic conference where Georgia Tech competes. That would be the ACC, or Atlantic Coast Conference, which confusingly includes a number of schools in the West and Midwest.
Login
