Germany Rejects US Anti-Iran Maritime Coalition. Will Other EU Member States “Follow Suit”?

Trump regime hardliners are struggling to enlist anti-Iran Operation Sentinel maritime coalition partners.

Britain’s limited Persian Gulf naval presence so far is separate from the Trump regime’s. The size of its fleet is a limiting factor. It’s been declining for years.

According to Defense,

“(t)he US Navy has struggled to maintain its global commitments with a fleet of 290 ships, and it has seen a 52 percent decrease from its 1987 peak of 594 ships. The US Navy is today pursuing a goal of 355 ships,” adding:

“(D)uring roughly the same time period, (Britain’s) navy has lost more than 40 percent of its fleet, that stood at more than 130 ships. Today’s Royal Navy numbers fewer than 80 ships.”

Pentagon warships are deployed worldwide, limiting its capability to mobilize a large strike force in multiple global areas, along with maintaining its other global deployments.

Despite no Persian Gulf threat by Iran to commercial shipping of any countries, US Joint Chiefs of Staff Air Force General Paul Selva invented a nonexistent regional IRGC maritime threat, claiming:

“…(T)here is a military role in defending freedom of navigation” in the Hormuz Strait. “The question will be to what extent the international community is behind that effort,” adding:

“If the Iranians come after US citizens, US assets or US military (sic), we reserve the right to respond with a military action. They need to know that. It needs to be very clear.”

Selva, other Pentagon commanders, and senior US political officials know Iran is “com(ing) after” no one.

The US military presence in the Middle East and elsewhere worldwide poses a major threat to world peace, stability, and security.

Nonbelligerent Iran is threatened by the US military presence near its territorial waters, coastline, and mainland, not the other way around.

France so far hasn’t agreed to join the Trump regime’s Operation Sentinel. According to Germany’s Deutsche Presse-Agentur and other Western media, Angela Merkel’s government declined a White House request to join Pentagon warships in monitoring Hormuz Strait seaborne traffic, a Berlin statement saying:

“Members of the German government have been clear that freedom of navigation should be protected…Our question is, protected by whom” against what threat?

Iran poses none. A German Foreign Ministry statement said Berlin “took note of the (US) proposal, but made no promises,” adding:

“Foreign Minister Maas has repeatedly stressed that, in our opinion, priority must be given to reducing tensions, and to diplomatic efforts.”

“We are in close consultation with France and the UK. Participation in the US strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ is ruled out for us.”

German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said his government is working with its UK and French counterparts to deescalate Persian Gulf tensions.

“The goal of all responsible politicians must be to observe the situation very soberly and carefully, and not to sleepwalk into an even bigger crisis,” he stressed, adding: “Deescalation is the order of the day.”

In May during a visit to Iraq, nonbelligerent Iran signed a non-aggression pact with Persian Gulf littoral states.

It emphasizes mutual cooperation for regional peace in a part of the world boiling from US aggression. Reportedly Iraq, Qatar, Kuwait, and likely Oman welcome the agreement, Tehran still awaiting responses from other regional countries.

An unnamed Arab source said

“(i)n response to Washington’s request for joining an international coalition to protect commercial ships in the region, Kuwait stated that the situation in the region was not like Saddam Hussein’s…”

“Kuwait had earlier rejected the US request for deployment of four B-52 bombers in Kuwait.”

Russia prepared its own plan for Persian Gulf Security, its principles polar opposite US belligerent aims.

It calls for for peaceful cooperative security, stressing adherence to international law, Russia’s Foreign Ministry saying:

“Under the current circumstances, active and efficient steps at the international and regional levels are needed to normalize and further improve the situation in the Gulf area, overcome the protracted crisis phase, and turn this subregion towards peace, good-neighborliness, and sustainable development.”

The initiative includes the following principles:

Mutual cooperation to eliminate regional extremism and terrorism in Syria, Yemen, and elsewhere in the region.

Mobilizing and influencing regional public opinion about the threat posed by terrorist groups and need to counter them by collective action.

All nations adhering “to international law, to the UN Charter, and UN Security Council resolutions in the first place. We all aim for a democratic and prosperous Middle East that would encourage inter-faith peace and coexistence.”

Trump regime hardliners strongly oppose Moscow’s initiative, along with any proposal for world peace and stability.

Achieving it undermines its imperial aims, why Russia’s plan won’t get out of the starting gate.

The Pentagon’s Operation Sentinel has nothing to do with protecting commercial or other shipping from an Iranian threat that doesn’t exist.

It may set the stage for a Gulf of Tonkin type false flag, wrongfully blamed on Iran, something more serious than others weeks earlier no evidence suggests Iran had anything to do with.

If US, UK, or other Western casualties occur, it could be a pretext for greater US toughness on Iran, including belligerence against its vessels, provoking the IRGC to respond, risking possible war.

What cool heads in the US, other Western states, and regional ones want avoided could be undermined a staged Trump regime incident, falsely blamed on Iran, setting off a chain reaction with unpredictable consequences.


Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

Visit his blog site at

Featured image: German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz (CC BY-SA 4.0)

150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Comment on Global Research Articles on our Facebook page

Become a Member of Global Research

Articles by: Stephen Lendman

About the author:

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected] His new book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III." Visit his blog site at Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Disclaimer: The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article. The Centre of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post Global Research articles on community internet sites as long the source and copyright are acknowledged together with a hyperlink to the original Global Research article. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: [email protected] contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: [email protected]