“It was a joint American-Israeli operation. I don’t think they had in mind that they would draw in European allies.” The UK has been treading a cautious line when it comes to Iran and it seems like US allies in Europe are not jumping to back Trump’s strikes, says former defence editor of the Times Michael Evans. Michael Evans was speaking to Hugo Rifkind on Times Radio. Listen live from 10am-1pm.
Eoin Drea is senior research officer at the Wilfried Martens Centre for European Studies.
Despite war raging in Ukraine and countries like North Macedonia, Georgia and Moldova desperately seeking to join the EU, there’s one member country that won’t be helping to defend Europe anytime soon.
Ireland simply has no undersea capabilities. How could it, when it barely spends 0.2 percent of GDP on security and defense? And it has, in effect, abdicated responsibility for protecting the Europe’s northwestern borders.
Things are so embarrassing that when Russian navy ships conducted drills near Irish waters three weeks before their invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, it was a fleet of Irish commercial fisherman who confronted them. And more recently, an upsurge of drug trafficking activity linked to Mexican organized crime forced current lawmaker (and former senior Irish army officer) Cathal Berry to warn that “(Ireland has) handed the keys of the country over to the cartels.”
Unfortunately, things are even worse up in the skies. Ireland has no combat jets, and it’s the only country in Europe that can’t monitor its own airspace due to the lack of primary radar systems. The absence of combat or heavy airlift planes has left the Irish begging other European air forces for help in emergencies — most recently during the evacuation of Western personnel from Afghanistan.
This must be the luck of the Irish — smile and get someone else to protect you for free.
Unfortunately, so entrenched are the country’s policymakers in their formula for defenseless neutrality that no major shift in policy is possible.
Officially, the Irish government is directing attention toward its “Report of the Commission on the Defence Forces” published in early 2022, which — they say — will transform Irish capabilities. Unfortunately, however, Irish defense spending continued its decline through 2023, with modest increases significantly below the rate of inflation. And the only planned upgrade before 2028 is the acquisition of a basic primary radar system — all other weaknesses are blisfully ignored.
The country has outsourced its security to Britain in a technically secret agreement between Dublin and London, which effectively cedes control over Irish air space to the Royal Air Force. | Ministry of Defence via Getty Images
Meanwhile, Dublin’s decision to attend this year’s Munich Security Conference and extol the virtues of neutrality demonstrates just how out of touch the country has become. This inevitable car crash of a discussion highlighted how Ireland’s painfully patronizing brand of best-in-class humanitarianism is no longer taken seriously beyond the Irish Sea.
Ironically, it’s Ireland’s membership in the single market and penchant for “tax competition” that’s given Dublin ample fiscal space to invest more in security and defense — if desired. Its booming business tax receipts, driven exclusively by U.S. tech and pharma companies, are expected to deliver budget surpluses of approximately €50 billion by 2027. Alas, security and defense spending don’t even enter into the conversation of how this money is to be spent.
Ultimately, Ireland’s policies underscore the fact that Dublin feels no responsibility to protect its own borders, regardless of the potential impact on its fellow EU members — a view that reflects its broader transactional approach to EU affairs, which is predicated on safeguarding existing relationships with the U.S. (corporate tax) and the U.K. (open border with Northern Ireland).
European solidarity only brings up the rear.
Plus, Ireland’s approach to the next round of EU budget negotiations promises to be more of the same old, same old — more money (Ireland’s a net contributor) in return for maintaining the flow of business tax returns. Somehow, Ireland, which was bailed out in 2010, is still trying (unsuccessfully) to run with the frugal gang when it comes to hard cash.
Pay a little, receive an awful lot more seems the current Irish mantra.
And most depressingly of all, not even a direct Russian attack on the Baltic states, Finland or Poland may convince Ireland to lift a finger — or reach for its checkbook — to help defend Europe.As part of a successful strategy to convince the country to ratify the Lisbon Treaty in 2009, the EU agreed to an additional Protocol, providing Dublin with an escape clause for any European defense responsibilities.
So, while the EU — including even Germany — stumbles forward on security and defense, Ireland remains aloof on its island oasis.
Two things are certain: Ukraine will keep fighting; Ireland will keep freeloading.
The Rundown: OpenAI signed a deal with the Pentagon, just hours after President Trump ordered to cut ties with Anthropic over safeguards on mass surveillance and autonomous weapons, with OpenAI claiming its contract carries the same red lines.
The details:
Anthropic was the first AI lab on the Pentagon’s classified network, but held firm on not using AI for mass domestic surveillance or autonomous weapons.Trump responded by ordering agencies to drop Anthropic, with War Sec. Pete Hegseth adding a “supply chain risk” tag only ever used on adversaries.OAI signed its own deal hours later, citing similar red lines to Anthropic — though the Pentagon reportedly still used Claude in Iran strikes post-ban.
Altman said the deal was “definitely rushed” and that the optics don’t look good” in an X AMA, while also calling the Anthropic ban “a very bad decision”.Consumer backlash landed fast, with Claude shooting to No. 1 on Apple’s App Store and a “Cancel ChatGPT” movement spreading across X and Reddit.
Why it matters: Whether OAI’s red lines actually match Anthropic’s or just look the part on paper is the question to watch. Claude’s surge and ChatGPT cancellation backlash show the user reaction, but a favorable relationship with the government over a top competitor might be worth more long-term than the lost consumer revenue.
Photo: Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty ImagesPresident Trump talks to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles yesterday in a secure space at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., during Operation Epic Fury.
Photo: Daniel Torok/The White House via Getty ImagesAir Force Gen. Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, in the Mar-a-Lago Situation Room yesterday.
Photo: The White House via APVice President JD Vance was in the White House Situation Room overnight as the military operation began in Iran, dialed into a conference line with Trump and the team at Mar-a-Lago. (The Washington Post)
Energy Secretary Chris Wright and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard are on the left. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is in the right foreground.
For national security reasons, the photo has been partially blurred so that lettering isn’t legible.
The U.S. used Anthropic’s Claude to support Operation Epic Fury against Iran yesterday, sources familiar with the Pentagon’s operations tell Axios.
Why it matters: The military’s use of Claude to capture Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January ignited the showdown between Anthropic and the Pentagon. Late Friday, the Pentagon said Anthropic will be designated a supply-chain risk. Anthropic vowed to fight in court.
Secretary of Defense Peter Hegseth said: “Anthropic will continue to provide the Department of War its services for a period of no more than six months to allow for a seamless transition.”Four and a half hours after the Pentagon vowed to banish Anthropic, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman announced an agreement for military use of his models.”We think our agreement has more guardrails than any previous agreement for classified AI deployments, including Anthropic’s,” an OpenAI statement said yesterday.
The backstory: OpenAI’s new Pentagon deal doesn’t explicitly prohibit collecting Americans’ publicly available information — a sticking point that rival Anthropic says is crucial for ensuring domestic mass surveillance doesn’t take place, Axios’ Maria Curi reports.
The Pentagon says mass surveillance is already illegal. Altman was asked thousands of questions about his Pentagon contract during an “ask me anything” on X last night, including whether he was worried there would be a dispute later on with the Pentagon over what’s legal or not.
Altman, who has 4.4 million X followers, replied: “Yes, I am. If we have to take on that fight we will, but it clearly exposes us to some risk.”Share this story.Jo Ling Kent interviews Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei late Friday. Photo: CBS News
Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei says today on “CBS News Sunday Morning”: “We are still interested in working with [the Defense Department] as long as it is in line with our red lines.
“The Pentagon still sees Anthropic’s Claude as superior to other models.Amodei told CBS News’ Jo Ling Kent late Friday: “If we can get to the point with the department where we can see things the same way, then perhaps there could be an agreement. … For our part and for the sake of U.S. national security, we continue to want to make this work.”
Amodei said Anthropic has sought to deploy its AI models for military use because “we are patriotic Americans” and “we believe in this country.
And an oil tanker was attacked in the Gulf of Oman by a bomb-carrying drone boat, sparking a fire and killing one, Oman says.
Why it matters: The refinery strike could mark a widening of the new Middle East war, which previously hadn’t targeted petroleum-related sites, writes Ben Geman, author of Axios Future of Energy.
Torbjorn Soltvedt, a top analyst with risk intelligence firm Verisk Maplecroft, said in a note: “The attack on Saudi Arabia’s Ras Tanura refinery marks a significant escalation, with Gulf energy infrastructure now squarely in Iran’s sights.”Get the latest.
Good Monday morning. Smart Brevity™ count: 1,408 words … 5½ mins. Thanks to Noah Bressner for orchestrating. Edited by Andrew Pantazi and Bill Kole.
1 big thing: Trump’s lethal presidency
Data: ACLED (Armed Conflict Location & Event Data). Chart: Axios Visuals (“Other” includes Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria and Venezuela — as well as the waters off Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Colombia, and Saint Vincent and the Grenadines.)
No president in the modern era has ordered more military strikes against as many countries as Donald Trump, Axios’ Zachary Basu writes. He has attacked seven nations, three of which — Iran, Nigeria and Venezuela — had never been targeted by U.S. military strikes. He authorized more airstrikes in 2025 than President Biden did in four years.
Why it matters: Trump ran as an anti-war candidate. The White House argues he still is — that he exhausts diplomacy before acting, and that projecting overwhelming force is itself a path to lasting peace. The deaths ofthree U.S. service members in the first 24 hours of Trump’s Iran strikes puts that argument to its most brutal test. “Sadly, there will likely be more before it ends. That’s the way it is,” Trump said in a video statement yesterday. “But we’ll do everything possible where that won’t be the case,” he added, vowing to “avenge their deaths.”The big picture: Trump’s strikes are historically distinctive not just in number but in kind.President Bush’s post-9/11 campaigns and President Obama’s drone wars were massive in scale — but concentrated in inherited or congressionally authorized theaters. Alongside traditional counterterrorism efforts, Trump has opened new fronts — a Christmas Day strike in Nigeria, drug boats sunk in the Caribbean, Nicolás Maduro snatched from Caracas. His preferred model is consistent: no boots on the ground, no lengthy entanglements, overwhelming force applied quickly and framed as essential to defending American interests.
Zoom in: The ongoing U.S. military operation against Iran now stands in a league of its own — the most aggressive, high-risk foreign policy act of Trump’s presidency.
Trump launched Operation Epic Fury — a joint U.S.–Israeli campaign explicitly aimed at toppling Iran’s government — without congressional authorization or sustained public debate.
It was preceded by the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq — a warning to Iran that failed talks in Geneva would have consequences.An F/A-18E Super Hornet returns to the USS Abraham Lincoln in support of Operation Epic Fury on Saturday. Photo: U.S. Navy
Zoom out: Trump outlined multiple targets for an operation he said could last four weeks: destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles, its rocket factories and its navy.
Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was assassinated by Israeli strikes in the first 24 hours, along with dozens of senior regime officials.
U.S. and Israeli strikes show no sign of letting up, as Iran’s retaliatory missiles and drones batter Gulf allies.
Back home, some of Trump’s most loyal supporters are struggling to square this war with the candidate they elected.
Several MAGA influencers resurfaced a warning last June from the late activist Charlie Kirk, who called regime change in Iran “insane” and predicted it would result in “a bloody civil war.”
George Bonanno, PhD, is a professor of clinical psychology at Columbia University Teachers College. He received his PhD from Yale University in 1991. His research and scholarly interests have centered on the question of how human beings cope with loss, trauma, and other forms of extreme adversity. His most recent book is The End of Trauma: How the New Science of Resilience is Changing How We Think About PTSD.
This Discourse features a lecture from Professor George Bonanno, Professor of Clinical Psychology at Teachers College, Columbia University, with a response from Ian Robertson MRIA, Professor Emeritus and Fellow at Trinity College Dublin and T Boone Pickens Distinguished Chair at the University of Texas at Dallas.
It will offer insights into the brain’s capacity for adaptation, focusing on the neurological and psychological mechanisms that underpin emotional resilience. Book your free ticket