Going after Iran's energy infrastructure raises fundamental legal questions because what Iran has shown is its willingness and ability to respond in kind against the water plants and energy infrastructure of all of its neighbors.

Individual U.S. soldiers are unlikely to balk at orders to target energy infrastructure because some argue energy contributes to military or leadership activities, placing the matter in a gray area of legal interpretation.

Infrastructure targeting raises policy questions beyond legality, and Trump's social media post urging these attacks does the opposite of reassuring partners and allies and does not intimidate Iran.

The operational success of the U.S. military in conducting the rescue mission was extraordinary, but this does not necessarily mean the United States is winning the war strategically, and there is a strong argument that the U.S. is not.

Without a firm European response using maximum retaliatory tariffs, Trump will continue to push pressure and expand demands, as he is counting on European division and lack of unified action.

Trump's approach is flipping European perception of the United States from being someone to work with to being someone to work around or even work against, fundamentally altering NATO dynamics.

Trump's tariff threats and Greenland annexation rhetoric reinforce the European view that the United States is no longer a reliable partner, compounding doubts that already emerged from US policy toward Ukraine and Russia.

Tariff threats and mafia-like coercion in the Greenland situation could be forgiven as an effort to provoke a crisis with Europe, suggesting the administration desires conflict rather than resolution.

Resolving the Greenland territorial threat is not a difficult diplomatic issue—it simply requires the Secretary of State to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement with Denmark, making it a job for diplomats rather than a matter of tariff threats and mafia-like coercion.

Europe has been the least favored part of the world for the Trump administration since it took office nearly a year ago, suggesting a systematic pattern rather than isolated incidents.

The real question is whether President Trump backs down from the Greenland tariff threats; even if he does, substantial damage is already baked into the cake in terms of European perceptions of American reliability.

Europe should respond to Trump's tariffs by using the 'bazooka'—imposing 25% retaliatory tariffs on the United States either across the board or specifically on the tech industry, but as a unified body to signal that enough is enough and prevent further pressure.

Trump is arguably the biggest force for European integration since Germany, suggesting his actions are paradoxically unifying Europe against him despite his intention to divide.