Trump took out Qassem Soleimani for attacking the U.S. Embassy. Who wants to be next?

Odds are future intending perpetrators will be at least somewhat deterred. And the more bad apples President Trump removes from the planet, the greater will become the deterrence. Thus is the difference between conservatism and liberalism.

This from frontpagemag.com.

Or a wise observer may call it, ‘The Donald Trump theory of international relations.’

In other words:

[G]etting skin in the game without sending U.S. troops.

This is what We the People witnessed when President Trump offered Zelenskyy the deal to exploit Ukraine’s rare earth minerals. The Z-man was obsessed with getting U.S. “security guaranties—a promise to send U.S. troops should Russia attack again in the future.”

Trump rightly said, no. Instead, he offered to put U.S. companies on the front lines, essentially making those civilians a tripwire should Russia dare attack.

Similarly, last week Trump convinced both Putin and Zelenskyy to engage in a limited ceasefire by ending strikes on energy and other civilian infrastructure, and then he floated the idea that Ukraine should sell its power plants to U.S. companies as a deterrent to Russian attacks.

Now as shareholders, certainly none of us want a company “with such a high-risk asset.” But still, the intent was clear: skin in the game.

Without skin in the game, again We the People witnessed what happens. On Friday, Russia launched waves of armed drones against the Black Sea port city of Odessa, sparking power outages, and the Ukes responded by allegedly blowing up a gas metering station near Kursk, Russia.

Both seemed to be pretty clear ceasefire violations. But with no skin in the game, neither attack has led to consequences—yet.

With NATO, President Trump is using a similar strategy.

Last week, he floated the idea of allowing a French (or other non-American) general to become the Supreme Allied Commander, the first time ever a non-American would command NATO. Some Republicans on the Hill were unhappy with that, but that is because they do not understand the notion of skin in the game.

Put the French in charge of NATO troops and they will increase their defense spending significantly—because they will have skin in the game.

The European Union is beginning to understand the concept, although how they achieve execution is another matter.

European Commission president Ursula Van der Leyden is floating her “Readiness 2030” plan that would obligate EU members to spend 800 billion euros over the next five years to expand their defense capabilities.

How they actually achieve that goal is another matter:

She is calling on the EU as an institution to “lend” 150 billion to member countries to get the ball rolling, perhaps by magically printing money or just by asking richer countries to pony up cash for their poorer neighbors.

She wants the money to be spent on massive purchases of new weaponry—mainly from European defense companies, specifically excluding US and British companies from the competition.

What are the odds of that?

President Reagan tried to open a “two-way street” of defense procurement with Europe in the 1980s, but after many years of trying, the Euros did not have that much to offer the Pentagon, and certainly zero in terms of major weapons systems.

Germany’s Leopard tanks have turned out to be clanking coffins in Ukraine, and the Ukes are clamoring for more Patriot air defense systems, not the European knock-offs. 

The Iranians are also beginning to realize they have skin in the game in Yemen—and undoubtedly, they wish they did not.

President Trump last week made sure they understand the United States considers every Houthi drone to be an Iranian drone, every Houthi missile to be an Iranian missile, and every Houthi attack on Israel or international shipping in the Red Sea to be an Iranian attack.

Desperate to divert President Trump and Pete Hegseth from utterly demolishing the Houthis in Yemen, the Iranians summoned the head of their main proxy militia in Iraq for meetings with top revolutionary guards’ brass in Tehran.

The word on the street is that they ordered Akram al-Kaabi to carry out a massive rocket attack on the US Embassy in Baghdad. Odds are that will not be met with favorable results.

The last time they tried that stunt, which was described in detail in Chapter 40 of The Iran House, President Trump ordered a drone strike that took out the commander of the Quds Force, the master of those proxy militia groups.

Uncoincidentally, Qassem Soleimani’s successor, Esmail Qaani, has become a bit shy about appearing in public. As an Iranian Quds Force officer these days, one never knows when one might experience an American drone falling from the sky onto one’s head.

Again, the wise observers of each of the issues listed herein, call them having real skin in the game.