Donald J. Trump v. NATO
This week, Trump used nearly every logical fallacy (including reverse psychology) in order to induce NATO to join American and Israeli military to open the Strait of Hormuz.
Despite the calm and civilized deferring by NATO, Trump refused to take NO for an answer.
I imagine that NATO did the classic COST-BENEFIT ratio country-by-country. (Put aside the tariffs issue for now.)
1. Suppose that a ship or two commandeered by a NATO country is blown up. Now that country and NATO are now invested in the War. No longer auxiliary. A new participant.
2. Suppose that NATO sends a ship or more. And Trump and Netanyahu don't want to invest any more of their own military. They'll argue to NATO to send soldiers as ships were inadequate. (NATO would claim the deal was for only ships.)
3. Unlikely case scenario: Trump has control over Iranian oil and the Strait of Hormuz. Hey EU and NATO! That oil's gonna cost ya!