Is it “All OK”? If So, Why the War Prep by Everyone? The Dark Storm Clouds of War Gather, By James Reed

Michael Snyder's article:

https://michaeltsnyder.substack.com/p/if-everything-is-going-to-be-okay

raises a critical question: if peace is on the horizon, why are Western powers making moves that suggest war is imminent? These actions, combined with recent developments, paint a picture of a world bracing for conflict, not peace.

Snyder points out the significant U.S. military build-up in the Middle East, particularly the deployment of five B-2 stealth bombers to Diego Garcia, a strategic island in the Indian Ocean. This is no small move—25 percent of the U.S.'s entire B-2 fleet, capable of carrying 125 tonnes of bombs, is now positioned within striking distance of Yemen and Iran. The B-2s are uniquely equipped to deliver "bunker buster" bombs like the GBU-57/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator, which can destroy deeply buried targets—exactly the kind needed to hit Iran's nuclear facilities. This deployment, as Snyder notes, echoes the U.S. air campaigns against Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2003, both of which were launched from Diego Garcia.

The U.S. has also bolstered its naval presence, with the USS Carl Vinson and USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carriers now in the region. The Truman has been actively striking Houthi targets in Yemen since mid-March 2025, with reports indicating heavy damage to Houthi military capabilities, including the deaths of several leaders. The Carl Vinson's redeployment from the Indo-Pacific to the Middle East, extending its mission by three months, further signals that the U.S. is preparing for a prolonged operation. National Security Advisor Mike Waltz has stated that 75 percent of U.S.-flagged shipping now avoids the Red Sea, taking the longer route around Africa due to Houthi attacks—a clear economic impact that the U.S. seems determined to address with force.

Snyder's concern about Iran is particularly pressing. President Trump has given Iran a two-month ultimatum to abandon its nuclear program or face military action. Waltz's comments on "Face the Nation" leave no room for compromise: Iran must completely dismantle its program, or the U.S. will act. Iran has already rejected negotiations, and with B-2 bombers in position, the stage is set for a potential strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. Such an attack would mean war with Iran—a conflict that could quickly spiral, given Iran's alliances with groups like the Houthis, Hezbollah, and other militias in the "Axis of Resistance." The Houthis, despite U.S. strikes, continue to target American forces, claiming attacks on the USS Harry S. Truman with missiles and drones. While U.S. officials dismiss these claims as exaggerated, the ongoing skirmishes show that the region is a powder keg.

If peace were truly imminent, why would the U.S. commit such significant military assets? The deployment of B-2s, designed for high-stakes, high-risk missions, suggests preparation for a major conflict, not a de-escalation. The U.S. appears to be sending a message to both the Houthis and Iran: comply, or face overwhelming force. But this brinkmanship risks igniting a broader war, especially if Iran perceives an attack as inevitable and strikes first.

Snyder also highlights the European Union's push for its 450 million citizens to prepare emergency kits with water, energy bars, and flashlights, ostensibly for war with Russia. This isn't a minor precaution—it's a bloc-wide initiative signalling deep concern about a potential conflict. The EU's "preparedness strategy" comes amid heightened tensions with Russia, driven by the ongoing war in Ukraine and fears of Russian aggression against NATO members.

The Ukraine-Russia conflict, now in its third year, shows no signs of abating. Despite a recent agreement to "ensure safe navigation" in the Black Sea and avoid attacks on infrastructure, both sides have accused each other of violations. Russia launched a massive drone attack on Odesa, while Ukraine allegedly targeted Russian energy facilities in Crimea and other regions. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has called out Russian President Vladimir Putin for breaking promises, noting that 150 drones targeted Ukrainian energy infrastructure despite Putin's pledge to halt such attacks. This mutual distrust makes any peace deal fragile at best.

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte's warning to Putin—that an attack on Poland or any NATO member would be met with a "devastating" response—adds to the tension. Rutte's language is unusually sharp, suggesting that NATO is on high alert. The recent deaths of four U.S. soldiers near Lithuania's border with Belarus, during a training mission, further escalate the situation. While details are scarce, the incident underscores the risks of NATO's presence near Russia's sphere of influence. Belarus, a close Russian ally, has been a staging ground for Russian operations in Ukraine, and any incident involving U.S. troops could be a flashpoint.

The EU's call for citizens to stockpile supplies isn't just about natural disasters—it's a clear signal that leaders fear a direct confrontation with Russia. If peace were truly on the horizon, why would the EU take such a drastic step? The combination of NATO's warnings, the breakdown of Ukraine-Russia agreements, and the EU's preparedness measures suggests that Europe is bracing for war, not banking on peace.

Snyder also notes Zelensky's reckless statement that Putin "will die soon." While Putin's health has been a subject of speculation for years, with reports of various ailments, Zelensky's public comment is a dangerous provocation. If Putin were to die—whether naturally or otherwise—Russians might point to Zelensky's words as evidence of foul play, especially given the history of assassinations in Russian politics. This could derail any chance of peace, as Russia might retaliate with even greater force, and hardliners in Moscow could push for escalation.

The timing of Zelensky's statement is particularly poor, given the delicate state of negotiations. Trump has been pushing for a ceasefire, even suggesting that the U.S. could take over Ukraine's nuclear power plants to protect its energy infrastructure—a proposal that raises questions about U.S. intentions. Putin, meanwhile, has insisted that halting foreign aid to Ukraine is key to ending the war, a demand that Zelensky and NATO are unlikely to accept. With both sides digging in, and incidents like the U.S. soldiers' deaths in Lithuania adding fuel to the fire, the prospect of peace seems increasingly remote.

Snyder's core argument—that Western actions contradict the narrative of impending peace—holds up under scrutiny. In the Middle East, the U.S.'s deployment of B-2 stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, and other assets signals preparation for a major conflict, likely with Iran, over its nuclear program. The ongoing campaign against the Houthis, combined with Trump's ultimatum to Tehran, suggests that military action is a matter of when, not if. In Europe, the EU's war preparedness measures, NATO's warnings, and the breakdown of Ukraine-Russia agreements point to a continent on edge, expecting conflict with Russia rather than peace.

These moves aren't the actions of leaders confident in a peaceful resolution. They're the actions of a world preparing for war. The deaths of U.S. soldiers in Lithuania, Zelensky's provocative claim about Putin, and the Houthi attacks on U.S. forces, all underscore the fragility of the current moment. The global situation is teetering on the brink, with the dark storm clouds of war gathering over both the Middle East and Europe."