Utweets
If Europe wasn’t already aware, the notable leak detailing discussions by JD Vance and other prominent Trump administration officials regarding a potential strike on the Houthis in Yemen further underscores that it has a target on its back....CONTINUE READING THE ARTICLE FROM THE SOURCE>>>
These administration officials provided Jeffrey Goldberg from the Atlantic with an inside look at the planning for the strike on the Houthis – a remarkable intelligence leak that has sparked outrage among Republicans who previously called for investigations into Hillary Clinton and others for mishandling sensitive information.
At its core, the strike against the Houthis seemed primarily related to the administration’s stance on safeguarding maritime trade and countering Iran, rather than its frustrations with Europe relying on US defense spending and military capabilities.
Yet Vance appears resolute in advocating for that perspective as a justification for delaying the strike.
“I believe we are making a mistake,” Vance noted, pointing out that while merely 3% of US trade passes through the Suez Canal, 40% of European trade does. “There’s a genuine risk that the public may not grasp this or understand its necessity,” he continued. “The strongest rationale for this action is, as [Trump] stated, to send a message.”
Vance argued that once again the United States was doing what Europe ought to be responsible for. This aligns with his previous assertions that the US is overextending itself for European security and reflects his disparagement of European allies (likely referring to the UK and France) when he labeled them as “some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years.” (Both nations participated in Afghanistan, and the UK fought alongside the US in Iraq).
During this policy dialogue, Goldberg noted his impression that he was witnessing authentic remarks from Vance, alongside defense secretary Pete Hegseth, national security advisor Michael Waltz, and senior Trump advisor Stephen Miller.
Vance then took it a step further. He subtly acknowledged a divergence between his foreign policy stance and that of Trump, asserting that the planned strike might undermine the president’s approach toward Europe – a stance Vance himself has championed during his provocative speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he accused European leaders of evading their electorates and has made Eurosceptic comments on Fox News.
“I am unsure if the president realizes how inconsistent this is with his current message regarding Europe,” Vance expressed. “There’s an additional risk that we might witness a moderate to severe increase in oil prices. I am willing to support the team’s consensus and keep these concerns private. However, there’s a compelling argument for delaying this by a month, conducting necessary communication on its significance, and assessing the economy.”
The individuals identified on the call also reflect the vice president’s increasing influence in foreign policy discussions. Vance mentioned Andy Baker, his national security advisor who previously led the transition team at the Pentagon, as his delegate. Hegseth named Dan Caldwell, a notable advocate for “restraint” in US foreign power usage to bolster Europe and counter adversaries like Russia, signifying the presence of Vance’s team at high levels within the Pentagon.
Essentially, the discord revealed that Vance’s perceptions of foreign policy do not completely align with those of Trump. Trump tends to view global affairs as transactional, and some optimists in Europe have argued that he could incentivize positive outcomes by compelling those nations to increase their defense expenditures. However, Vance appears more confrontational and principled regarding his disdain for the transatlantic alliance, vocalizing criticism of European leaders for endorsing values they claim do not align with those of the US.
This makes Vance an even greater concern for Europe. Kaja Kallas, the European foreign policy chief, accused Vance of “attempting to instigate a conflict” with European allies. Another European diplomat remarked: “He is exceedingly dangerous for Europe… possibly the most [dangerous] figure in the administration.” A different diplomat described him as “obsessed” with creating a rift between Europe and the US.
During the conversation, some participants cautiously attempted to dissuade Vance. Hegseth stated that the strike would advance “core” American values, including freedom of navigation and establishing deterrence. However, he mentioned that the strikes could be postponed, if necessary. Waltz, who holds traditional foreign policy views, acknowledged: “It will be the responsibility of the United States to reopen these shipping lanes.” Yet he concurred that the administration aimed to “assess the associated costs and impose them on the Europeans.”
“If you believe we should proceed, let’s do it. I just despise bailing out Europe again,” Vance responded. Hegseth echoed, stating, “I completely share your disdain for European freeloading. It’s PATHETIC.” Nevertheless, he added, “we are the only ones in the world (on our side of the ledger) capable of doing this.”
Miller, the Trump confidant, effectively concluded the discussion by asserting that the president had made his position clear. “Green light, but we must soon communicate to Egypt and Europe what we expect in return.”
Overall, the administration’s policies toward Europe are becoming clearer. Few are stepping forward to show support for NATO or for Europe as a whole. During a podcast interview this past weekend, senior Trump envoy Steve Witkoff speculated about the potential for Gulf economies to outgrow those of Europe. “It could surpass Europe by a significant margin. Europe is currently dysfunctional,” he remarked.
Tucker Carlson, the host and another Trump confidant, concurred. “It would be beneficial for the world since Europe is in decline,” he commented…CONTINUE READING>>
