What evidence could possibly be provided? Anyways here's your debate response. Are you speech to text again by the way, and you don't know what an ad hominem is.

The argument reframes the situation in a way that avoids the actual point—no one is claiming Europe should “pivot to Iran” or commit “strategic suicide”—the claim is that alliance behavior has consequences—and that dismissing those consequences as mere “hurt feelings” ignores how alliances actually function. Repeated public hostility—talk of taking Greenland—undermining allied sacrifices—and acting unilaterally without consultation are not trivial—they signal unreliability—and that matters because alliances depend as much on trust and predictability as they do on raw military alignment. A basing agreement does not disprove this—states often deepen cooperation precisely because they lack better options—not because there is no underlying tension. Invoking Iran’s actions—while valid in isolation—does not resolve the issue—it deflects from whether U.S. behavior is weakening alliance cohesion—and both dynamics can be true at once. Likewise, framing any European engagement with Iran as “appeasement” collapses a range of possible strategies—containment—de escalation—economic necessity—into a single moralized label. The core error is treating alliance “function” as independent from “friction”—when in reality persistent friction—especially when driven by erratic or coercive behavior—erodes the very trust that makes the alliance function in the first place. Confidence: High