> I can both deny you the means to defend yourself, forcing you to rely on me for protection. That's the definition of a protection racket.

The US didn't deny Europe the means to defend itself. Europe chose not to build those means because it was cheaper to rely on the US. These were domestic political choices made by governments whose voters preferred social programs over defense budgets. A protection racket requires coercion; what the EU received is much closer to a subsidy.

> This is revisionist history at best. The US has done their best to undermine and dismantle European social programs.

Can you cite a specific example? The US has broadly pushed for capitalist markets or free trade via policy, but "done their best to undermine and dismantle European social programs" is a very strong claim without evidence. Norway's sovereign wealth fund being "tolerated" because of strategic positioning is, at best, a conspiracy theory. There has been some tension over Norway divesting in American companies for political reasons, but that's hardly the claim you've made.

> America was protecting Israel's trade routes. Let's be clear. European trade routes largely just rerouted around the Cape of Good Hope.

Rerouting around the Cape added weeks of delay and a high monetary cost to European shipping. Just because European ships could reroute doesn't mean the European economy wasn't significantly impacted. Why did the European trade association publicly beg for more governments to join the operation if the Red Sea shipping was only about Israel?

> You can't both have a protection racket and expect military help

You expect America to adopt a one-way obligation where it provides for the defense of its allies, and receives no help in return? Why wouldn't that deal fall apart?

> Yes, literally nobody wanted the US and Israel to launch an unnecessary, unprovoked and ill-planned war on Iran

You can disagree with the decision to strike Iran. But when Iran retaliates by launching missiles and drones into 12 different countries (11 of which had not participated in the initial strikes against Iran in any way), the question of whether allies will support defensive operations is separate from whether they endorsed the initial strikes.

> Not a single defense analyst would even seriously consider such a prospect

No country would seriously consider it a prospect because the entire might of the US Armed Forces would immediately engage anyone who tried. This despite the fact that Canada has anemic defense spending, a large arctic border with Russia, and strategic assets I'm sure Russia would love to have.