Leaked messages inadvertently shared with Atlantic journalists reveal the unfiltered views of JD Vance and Pete Hegseth regarding European allies. If Europe was not already on high alert, the extraordinary leak of internal deliberations by Vance and other senior Trump administration officials over a planned strike against the Houthis in Yemen made it clear that it remains in Washington's crosshairs.
The administration officials provided Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic direct insight into the planning for the strike, resulting in a stunning intelligence leak. This revelation has sparked outrage among Republicans, who had previously called for criminal investigations into figures like Hillary Clinton for mishandling sensitive information.
At first glance, the planned strike against the Houthis appeared to be primarily about securing maritime trade and curbing Iranian influence rather than targeting European dependency on U.S. military strength. "I think we are making a mistake," wrote Vance, highlighting that while only 3% of U.S. trade passes through the Suez Canal, a significant 40% of European trade relies on it. "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 argued that the United States was once again undertaking responsibilities that should fall on Europe. This aligns with his long-standing position that the U.S. overinvests in European security. His disdain for European allies, likely directed at the UK and France, was evident when he dismissed them as "some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years"—ignoring their involvement in Afghanistan and, in the UK’s case, Iraq alongside the U.S.
During this policy discussion, Goldberg observed what he believed to be the authentic perspectives of Vance, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller.
Vance went further, subtly distinguishing his foreign policy stance from Trump’s. He warned that the strike would contradict Trump’s broader European policy—a policy he had spearheaded with his contentious speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he criticized European leaders for distancing themselves from their electorates and expressed skepticism about transatlantic ties in Fox News interviews.
"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."
The individuals on the call reflect Vance’s growing influence in foreign policy circles. He appointed Andy Baker, his national security advisor and a key Pentagon transition team leader, as his representative. Hegseth designated Dan Caldwell, a prominent advocate for limiting U.S. military intervention abroad, reinforcing the Vance team’s influence within the Pentagon.
At its core, the dispute highlighted a misalignment between Vance and Trump’s foreign policy philosophies. Trump views global affairs through a transactional lens, with some European optimists believing he could extract increased defense spending from European nations. Vance, however, appears more confrontational and ideological in his opposition to the transatlantic alliance, frequently criticizing European leaders for promoting values he sees as incompatible with U.S. interests.
This stance has alarmed European officials. Kaja Kallas, the European foreign policy chief, accused Vance of "trying to pick a fight" with European allies. A European diplomat described Vance as "very dangerous for Europe … maybe the most [dangerous] in the administration." Another observed that he was "obsessed" with driving a wedge between Europe and the U.S.
On the policy call, some participants cautiously attempted to moderate Vance’s stance. Hegseth argued that the strike aligned with "core" American principles like freedom of navigation and deterrence but acknowledged the possibility of delaying it. Waltz, a traditionalist in foreign policy, stated, "It will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes." However, he agreed that the administration should assess the costs and ensure European nations bear their share.
"If you think we should do it, let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again," Vance responded. Hegseth concurred, saying, "I fully share your loathing of European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC." However, he acknowledged, "We are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this."
Miller, Trump’s confidant, ultimately concluded the discussion: "Green light, but we soon make clear to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return."
The administration’s European policy is becoming clearer, with few voices advocating for NATO or broader European solidarity. In a podcast interview, senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff speculated about the potential for Gulf economies to surpass Europe’s economic significance. "It could be much bigger than Europe. Europe is dysfunctional today," he remarked.
Tucker Carlson, another Trump confidant, echoed this sentiment. "It would be good for the world because Europe is dying," he stated.
Despite these discussions, Vance remains intent on using Europe’s reliance on U.S. military support as justification for delaying the strike.
Comments
Post a Comment