Boycott our cowardly “allies”

Strange how gutless European nations only recognize terror and oppression when it echoes with goose-stepping Nazi boots in their own streets, but 45 years of international murder by the mullahs of Iran falls on deaf ears.

As the United States and Israel put an end to a generation of Iranian tyranny and worldwide terrorist sponsorship, the countries which begged for liberation from the stranglehold of the Third Reich stand idly by with platitudes and excuses.

They should take heed: Americans have long memories.

Instead of solidarity in the U.S.-led effort to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Washington has been met with hesitation, deflection, and outright refusal from nations that have long benefited from American protection.

Countries like France, Germany, Spain, and Italy have declined to participate in meaningful security efforts. In the Indo-Pacific, economic giants like Japan, South Korea, and India have similarly chosen cowardice over commitment. Even Australia, heretofore one of America’s closest allies, has stepped back.

This collective cowardice stands in stark contrast to the sacrifices the United States made on behalf of these same regions during World War II. American soldiers crossed the Atlantic to liberate Europe from tyranny, shedding blood on the beaches of Normandy and in the fields of France, Belgium and Germany. In the Pacific, U.S. forces fought island by island, bearing the brunt of a brutal war to secure freedom for nations now among the world’s most prosperous economies.

Those efforts weren’t transactional. They were rooted in a belief that collective security and shared values among free people demand sacrifice. Today, when the U.S. asks for help, that spirit’s in short supply.

Instead, many of these nations continue to enjoy the benefits of global stability—particularly the uninterrupted flow of energy through the Strait of Hormuz—while declining to help ensure it. They urge de-escalation, even as they rely on American naval power to keep trade routes open. They speak of diplomacy, but offer little in the way of tangible support.

What does alliance mean without mutuality?

American policymakers in the Trump Administration are taking note, but so should American consumers.

The U.S. remains one of the largest markets in the world, importing vast quantities of goods from these same countries: automobiles from Germany and Japan, electronics from South Korea and China, luxury goods from France and Italy, pharmaceuticals from India. These trade relationships are not acts of charity; they are mutually beneficial arrangements that give foreign economies significant access to American wealth. Though the Strait of Hormuz may be 10,000 miles away, American consumers have power in this equation.

A targeted, voluntary boycott of goods from, and travel to, nations unwilling to stand alongside the United States in matters of global security would send a clear message: partnership is a two-way street. If governments choose neutrality when American interests and global stability are at stake, they should not expect business as usual from the American marketplace.

It’s not a rejection of diplomacy. It is a demand for accountability.

Alliances are not defined by press statements or shared history alone, they’re defined by action when it matters most. If America’s partners are unwilling to act in defense of the very system that has helped sustain their prosperity, it’s reasonable and  necessary for Americans to reconsider the terms of those relationships.

History remembers who stood together in times of crisis, and it remembers who stood aside.