Even if most individual NATO members are still reluctant to jump on board Trump's Iran war, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte is busy praising American military action there amid the annual summit in Ankara.
Rutte has freshly described the overnight fresh US military strikes on Iran in response to Tehran attacking multiple international shipping vessels "absolutely necessary". Rutte voiced agreement with Trump that Iran's actions violated the MoU ceasefire agreement with the US, which required a response.
Getty Images"When you have a ceasefire and Iran is basically violating the ceasefire, I think it is totally crucial that the US forcefully react," Rutte told reporters.
The new US actions resulted in a swift Iranian response, in the form of Iranian drones and missiles on Kuwait and Bahrain, which the latter country decried as a "dangerous escalation".
"The era of bullying and extortion is over," Iran’s Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf wrote on X. "It leads nowhere. We don’t fold."
As we reported earlier, President Trump has called the Iranians "scum" and declared the ceasefire "over": "To me, I think it's over. I don't want to deal with them anymore; they're scum," Trump told reporters.
All this naturally brings up the question of 'what's next?'
Certainly the Iranians seem in the mood for a fight, and Washington feels it can't let attacks on international shipping slide - so all for this could portend a return to all-out war.
Reporter: What is your reaction to the recent U.S. attacks on Iran?
NATO's Rutte: I think it was absolutely necessary. Iran is violating the ceasefire. pic.twitter.com/kd6Nr9Dtwx
It's been 129 days since the start of Operation Epic Fury - a conflict which US officials had promised would be 'fast' - and the public has been 'assured' it is not a quagmire. Yet here we are.
As for Rutte, it's unclear what his strategy for Iran, if any, might be. He's clearly trying to keep Trump happy, playing Trump whisperer in Turkey, vis-a-vis the NATO alliance and its continued funding. Here was some Trump commentary on NATO 'unity' in Ankara:
“Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don’t participate. They don’t pay. I don’t want anything to do with Spain. Cut off all trade with Spain, please, including visits,” he said at a press conference in Ankara with NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.
Trump also reignited inter-alliance tensions when he resurfaced his desire to take control of Greenland, a territory of NATO member Denmark.
The NATO chief has also newly stated could be no doubt over the "complete commitment of the United States to NATO" - which he claimed also defends the United States and is thus invaluable.
via CNBC"But there's also the expectation that the Europeans and the Canadians will equalize their spending with the United States, which I think is completely fair," he added.
"The good news is that this is the big win today. It's the loss for Putin, it is a win for President Trump that the Europeans and the Canadians are doing exactly that," Rutte said.
Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 08:25Authored by Kevin Stocklin via The Epoch Times,
A new bill in Congress would enshrine into law the ability of the executive branch to buy into private companies, and create a fund to finance the purchases.
The Pentagon in Arlington, Va., in this file photo. Carolyn Kaster/APThe current Senate version of the National Defense Authorization Act gives the Defense Department explicit authority to take ownership stakes in companies. A provision titled "Equity Investments and Related Matters" establishes a new "Department of Defense Equity Investment Account" within the Treasury Department, which the Defense Department can use to make equity investments in critical minerals, materials, chemicals, and batteries.
While administration officials say this move allows the Defense Department to better align its goals with the private sector and for taxpayers to earn a return if the companies do well, critics have raised concerns about establishing a legal basis for government expansion into the private sector.
Government investments in companies under this bill would be limited to a 50 percent stake, non-voting shares, and a dollar cap of $500 million.
Michael Duffey, under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, stated in January that the Trump administration is "fundamentally shifting our approach to securing our munitions supply chain."
"By investing directly in suppliers we are building the resilient industrial base needed for the Arsenal of Freedom," Duffey said.
The Pentagon has been actively buying stakes in private companies over the past year, including a $400 million investment in MP Materials, a rare-earths mining company, in 2025, and a $1 billion investment a L3Harris Technologies, a rocket motor manufacturer, in April, as well as a 10 percent stake in chipmaker Intel.
"Equity ownership can align incentives in ways that grants and subsidies cannot," Carliss Chatman, a law professor at Southern Methodist University, told The Epoch Times.
"If taxpayers are assuming significant financial risk to help develop strategically important industries, an equity stake allows the public to participate in the upside if those investments succeed," she said. "Equity may also provide the government with governance rights, access to information, or long-term alignment that grants generally do not."
Potential For Conflicts Of InterestCritics, however, say this initiative marks a new expansion of the state into private industry. While the U.S. government has taken stakes in banks, insurers, and carmakers in the past, those have been short-term measures to rescue companies from bankruptcy, and typically done with congressional approval and oversight.
"The problem begins with creating the statutory architecture for a Pentagon stock portfolio in the first place," Cato economist Tad DeHaven stated in a June 16 report. "That means Congress would not merely be tolerating a one-off emergency action but would instead provide the Pentagon with a standing legal pathway to acquire ownership stakes in private companies."
The Defense Department can legitimately support strategic industries through grants, loans, and government contracts, DeHaven states, but "ownership means continuing federal financial interest in a company's valuation, which is precisely what creates the favoritism, conflict of interest, and political pressure risks Congress should be avoiding."
Duffey stated at a March 4 House Armed Services Committee hearing that these equity investments "create a partnership with industry, an opportunity, not only for government to provide capital to lead to the kind of growth such as in the L3 deal, but it also crowds in additional private capital."
However, the purchases have drawn scrutiny. Critics say that the Defense Department's investment in L3 Harris Technologies could create a conflict of interest, with the government's role as L3's largest customer and decision-maker regarding procurement, as well as a shareholder that will benefit if the company performs well.
This raises questions about whether procurement decisions will be truly impartial, analysts say, given that companies such as Northrop Grumman and Anduril Industries, in which the state has no stake, also manufacture rocket motors and compete in the same markets as L3.
"More money can help, but we also don't want to discourage fair competition that encourages people to get into this space," Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) stated at the House Armed Services Committee hearing. "If they think the government's going to come in and just put their their thumb on the scale, it could discourage some of the investment we've seen."
State ownership raises other issues, as well.
Corporate Governance"Equity ownership introduces governance questions that grants typically avoid," Chatman said.
"Once the government becomes a shareholder, questions arise regarding voting rights, fiduciary expectations, political influence over corporate decision-making, and eventual exit strategies," she said. "The legal design of the investment therefore matters as much as the decision to invest itself."
Federal ownership of private companies is becoming popular on both sides of the political aisle. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) recently proposed the American A.I. Sovereign Wealth Fund Act, in which the government would take a 50 percent stake in America's largest artificial intelligence companies.
"This would guarantee that the trillions created by AI are used to improve the lives of all of us - and block oligarch decisions that harm the American people," Sanders posted on X on June 1.
Critics, however, say this is a slippery slope to more government control over Americans' private lives. They point to attempts by the Biden administration to pressure private companies to censor Americans and to fire employees who refused COVID-19 injections, as well as the Canadian government's use of private banks and insurance companies to crush truckers' protests of that country's COVID-19 policies.
"Consider the Biden administration's pressure applied to social media firms during the COVID lockdowns," Jeffrey Degner, a policy expert at the American Institute for Economic Research, told the Daily Signal. "Imagine the silencing of free speech if the government had already taken ownership stakes in these firms!"
Reuters contributed to this report.
Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 08:05During a NATO summit in Ankara, President Trump instructed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to cut off trade with Spain over defense spending.
"I didn't speak to Spain. Spain is a wasted cause. We don't want to do any trade business with Spain anymore," Trump told reporters.
"By the way, I'd like you to cut it off," the president said, turning to Bessent, who replied: "Yes, sir."
Trump then added, "Take it immediately. Don't even talk to them. They're hopeless. They're bad people ... They make so much money with us, and we're going to make sure they make a lot less."
Trump told NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte that Spain "doesn't agree to anything, and you shouldn't carry them."
Rutte later tried to ease tensions by saying that Madrid "made a huge step last year" by raising its spending to 2%, although he added that "there are still issues we have to solve".
.@POTUS: "Spain is a wasted cause. We don't want to do any trade business with Spain anymore by the way... Spain is a terrible partner in NATO. They don't participate, they don't pay. I don't want anything to do with Spain." pic.twitter.com/3prqux6p54
— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) July 8, 2026Important to note: Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez is a socialist and has been sharply critical of Trump's foreign policy, including denying US military access to Spanish bases during the US-Iran campaign.
Spain is also the world's largest olive oil exporter.
How Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent will follow through on Trump's order to halt trade with Spain remains unclear.
However, if trade restrictions materialize, US olive oil importers may have to rethink their supply chains and look more aggressively to Italy, Tunisia, Portugal, and Greece as alternatives to Spanish suppliers.
Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 07:45Most Americans do not believe that European members of the North Atlantic Alliance would come to the United States' aid if attacked.
Politico reported that a NATO poll found that just 43% of Americans believe the bloc would assist the US if needed. While Politico was unable to view survey results from previous years, a NATO official said that American confidence in the bloc was down about eight percent.
via Associated PressThe foundation of NATO is Article 5 of the bloc’s charter. Article 5 is viewed as a mutual defense pact that calls on each member to come to the aid of any state that is attacked.
In recent years, Americans have begun to question the United States' membership in the bloc. Americans have long pointed to the US footing the majority of the alliance's military spending.
The drift away from supporting NATO intensified when the bloc backed Ukraine in the war against Russia. Many Americans argued that NATO providing billions of dollars of assistance to non-member Ukraine unnecessarily created tensions with Russia.
President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently criticized the alliance over Europe's lack of assistance in the war against Iran:
President Donald Trump declined Tuesday to say whether he plans to announce additional US troop reductions in Europe, telling reporters, "we’re going to see," during a bilateral meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ahead of the NATO summit in Ankara.
“Well, we’re going to see,” Trump said when asked whether he is likely to announce further drawdowns of US forces in Europe.
The US president also renewed his criticism of NATO, suggesting he had considered skipping the summit altogether.
Trump is meeting other NATO leaders in Turkey this week, where he is expected to push member states to increase military spending.
PRESIDENT TRUMP: "We’ve invested trillions of dollars in NATO. Why? To protect European countries and others... You would think that they'd be very willing to do something to help us, and they really weren't... I've long said that we help them, but I'm not sure that they'd be… pic.twitter.com/YF7UCfIpo2
— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 7, 2026Ahead of the summit, NATO Ambassador Matthew Whitaker downplayed the tensions between Washington and the bloc as growing pains. "The target is that Europe takes over the conventional defense of the European continent. We’re not going away, we’re just doing less." He added, "I see these as just the challenges that we’ve worked through before."
Tyler Durden Wed, 07/08/2026 - 07:20