Analysis
Stunning
Signal leak reveals depths of Trump administration’s loathing of Europe
Andrew Roth
in
Washington
Messages
inadvertently shared with Atlantic journalist lays bare the unvarnished truth
about how Vance and Hegseth feel about European allies
Tue 25 Mar
2025 06.05 GMT
If Europe
wasn’t already on notice, the extraordinary leak of deliberations by JD Vance
and other top-level Trump administration officials over a strike against the
Houthis in Yemen was another sign that it has a target on its back.
The
administration officials gave Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic a front-row seat
to the planning for the strike against the Houthis – a stunning intelligence
leak that has caused anger against Republicans who called for criminal
investigations against Hillary Clinton and others for playing fast and loose
with sensitive information.
On the face
of it, the strike against the Houthis had far more to do with the
administration’s policies on protecting maritime trade and containing Iran than
its concerns about Europe freeloading on US defense spending and military
prowess.
But Vance
appears determined to push that angle as a reason to postpone the strike.
“I think we
are making a mistake,” wrote Vance, adding that while only 3% of US trade goes
through the Suez canal, 40% of European trade does. “There is a real risk that
the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” he added. “The
strongest reason to do this is, as [Trump] said, to send a message.”
Vance was
contending that once again the United States is doing what Europe should be. It
is consistent with his past arguments that the US is overpaying for European
security and the derision he displayed toward European allies (almost certainly
the UK and France) when he described them as “some random country that hasn’t
fought a war in 30 or 40 years”. (Both fought in Afghanistan and the UK fought
alongside the US in Iraq).
It was
during this policy discussion, Goldberg wrote, that he was convinced that he
was reading remarks by the real Vance, as well as defense secretary Pete
Hegseth, national security advisor Michael Waltz, and senior Trump advisor
Stephen Miller.
Then Vance
went a step further. He tacitly admitted a difference between his foreign
policy and Trump’s saying that the strike would undermine the president’s
Europe policy – one that has been led by Vance in his divisive speech at the
Munich Security Conference where he accused European leaders of running from
their own electorates and of his Eurosceptic comments on Fox News.
“I am not
sure the president is aware how inconsistent this is with his message on Europe
right now,” Vance wrote. “There’s a further risk that we see a moderate to
severe spike in oil prices. I am willing to support the consensus of the team
and keep these concerns to myself. But there is a strong argument for delaying
this a month, doing the messaging work on why this matters, seeing where the
economy is, etc.”
Those
designated on the call also reflect the vice-president’s growing clout in
foreign policymaking circles. Vance named Andy Baker, his national security
advisor who helped lead the transition team at the Pentagon, as his
representative. Hegseth named Dan Caldwell, a leading proponent of “restraint”
in the exercise of US foreign power abroad to protect Europe and counter rivals
like Russia, indicating the Vance team’s presence at high levels of the
Pentagon as well.
At heart,
the disagreement indicated that Vance’s views of foreign policy are not quite
aligned with Trump. Trump broadly sees the world as transactional and optimists
in Europe have claimed he could force a positive outcome by forcing those
nations to spend more on defense budgets. But Vance appears far more
confrontational and principled in his antipathy toward the transatlantic
alliance, and has attacked European leaders for backing values that he says are
not aligned with the US.
That makes
Vance even more of a concern for Europe. Kaja Kallas, the European foreign
policy chief, accused Vance of “trying to pick a fight” with European allies.
Another European diplomat said: “He is very dangerous for Europe … maybe the
most [dangerous] in the administration.” Another said he was “obsessed” with
driving a wedge between Europe and the US.
Back on the
chat some sought – carefully – to talk Vance down. Hegseth said the strike
would promote “core” American values including freedom of navigation and
pre-establish deterrence. But he said the strikes could wait, if desired.
Waltz, a foreign policy traditionalist, said: “It will have to be the United
States that reopens these shipping lanes.” But he agreed that the
administration sought to “compile the cost associated and levy them on the
Europeans”.
“If you
think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance
replied. Hegseth agreed that “I fully share your loathing of European
free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” But, he added, “we are the only ones on the
planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”
Miller, the
Trump confidant, effectively ended the conversation by saying that the
president had been clear. “Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and
Europe what we expect in return.”
Broadly, the
administration’s policies on Europe are coming into focus. And there are few
stepping up to voice backing for Nato or for Europe writ large. On a podcast
interview this weekend, the senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff mused about the
potential for the Gulf economies to replace those of Europe. “It could be much
bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today,” he said.
Tucker
Carlson, the host and another Trump confidant, agreed. “It would be good for
the world because Europe is dying,” he said.
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário