World

When Donald Trump called on Iran’s Ayatollah to “surrender” during Israel’s recent war the word struck many as jarring – almost antiquated. No major global leader has used that language publicly since the unconditional surrenders of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan in 1945.But Trump’s invocation, intentional or not and soon abandoned by his call for a “ceasefire,” points to a deeper issue: Are the rules that governed mid-20th century warfare still relevant in the 21st century? Why has “surrender” disappeared from the language of modern warfare? And what, exactly, do today’s ever-growing humanitarian laws offer nation-states forced to operate under them, in a world that looks nothing like the one left smoldering in 1945?

Sitting next to Donald Trump at the end of a short NATO summit, Mark Rutte, head of the organization, looked quite amused as he listened to the President describe the Israel-Iran conflict.  "They've had a big fight, like two kids in a schoolyard," Trump said. "You know, they fight like hell, you can't stop them. Let them fight for about two to three minutes, then it's easy to stop them." Raising a fist, Rutte added: "And then Daddy has to sometimes use strong language to get (them to) stop." Soon after, flanked by two of his Apprentices, Pete Hegseth and Marco Rubio, Daddy Trump gave his own press conference. He talked for 15 minutes before he took a single question. The Netherlands, he said, “has the most beautiful trees. I want to bring some back with me.

Where is Tulsi Gabbard? The country’s Director of National Intelligence has been glaringly absent as the biggest national security story in years continues to develop. In both the lead-up to and the aftermath of President Trump’s decision to strike Iran’s nuclear sites, Gabbard has barely been seen, or heard. It’s a strange time for the chief of the US intelligence community to go silent, leading to a growing number of questions that Americans – particularly MAGA Americans – would like answered.It’s Gabbard’s now-infamous testimony to Congress in March – and a video posted to social media earlier this month – that are thought to have sidelined her from the Trump administration in recent weeks.

Zero-hour was approaching. A joint US-Israeli attack on the mullahs’ mountain fastness at Fordow seemed imminent. The B-52s were on the tarmac, the USS Nimitz had taken to sea, Ambassador Mike Huckabee was reaching for the smelling salts.  And then? A last-minute pause. “I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,” said the President. Delays like these have now become a standard part of Trump’s box of tricks. If a drama – like the ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs of earlier this year – can be kept going for a little longer, then all the more time to extract further concessions from the opposing party. As negotiating tactics go there are certainly worse ones. But was there another reason?

The handsome pages of The Spectator World’s July issue readers will find an essay of mine arguing that the United States doesn’t win wars anymore because we don’t even understand what a modern war is. From the French Revolution to the Cold War, and in the long, warm afterglow—thankfully, non-nuclear—of Cold War success, Western elites have tended to think about wars in terms of regimes and ideologies. Winning a war is all about changing the opponent’s regime so that it endorses one’s own ideology: turning a “dictatorship” into a “liberal democracy” through the magic of bombs and bullets.

As the annual G7 Summit kicks off in Canada, President Trump told reporters that removing President Vladimir Putin from the group was a mistake, and had they not done so, the Kremlin's over two-year war against Ukraine would not have happened. "They threw Russia out, which I claimed was a very big mistake, even though I wasn’t in politics then. I was very loud about it," Trump said. He reasoned, "You spend so much time talking about Russia, and he’s no longer at the table. So it makes it more complicated – but you wouldn’t have had the war." Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney appeared somewhat disengaged next to Trump and gazed off into the distance when Trump said the war would have never happened.

American divisions over politics look positively civil compared to the polarization that has gripped South Korea over the last few years. During the 2022 elections, Yoon Suk-yeol of the conservative People Power party (PPP) narrowly won the presidency over his liberal opponent Lee Jae-myung from the Democratic Party by a razor thin 0.73 percent. But Yoon hastened the demise of his own presidency when on December 3, 2024, he made the poor decision to declare martial law over baseless accusations that the National Assembly’s progressive opposition were collaborating with North Korea. Martial law lasted for only a few hours after both parties unanimously voted to lift the decree.