Trump Demands a Coalition
That's not how any of this works.
From earlier this week via the Financial Times: Donald Trump warns Nato faces ‘very bad future’ if allies fail to help US in Iran.
The US president told the FT in an interview on Sunday that he could also delay his summit with China’s President Xi Jinping later this month as he presses Beijing to help unblock the crucial waterway.
“It’s only appropriate that people who are the beneficiaries of the strait will help to make sure that nothing bad happens there,” Trump said, arguing that Europe and China are heavily dependent on oil from the Gulf, unlike the US.
“If there’s no response or if it’s a negative response I think it will be very bad for the future of Nato,” he added.
Trump’s comments, made in an eight-minute phone call with the FT, came a day after he appealed to China, France, Japan, South Korea and the UK to join a “team effort” to open up the chokepoint through which a fifth of the world’s oil passes.
Also via Axios: Trump eyes “Hormuz Coalition,” seizure of Iran’s Kharg Island oil hub.
Weirdly, however (and I know this is a shocker): other countries don’t like to be bullied into a military coalition. This is especially true when they all see the foolishness of the military operation in question.
There’s a reason that a common word associated with “coalition” is “building.”
Oh, and who could have seen such an outcome after Trump has spent years denigrating allies and chest-thumping about American power?
I guess the notion of building an alliance first, to include making an actual case for war, and then blowing things up, didn’t occur to anyone.
As Krugman notes, for example, this is the same president who spent much of the year putting arbitrary tariffs on our allies, and in the wake of the SCOTUS decision curtailing some of those powers, he is finding new and bizarre ways to punish our friends.
Looking forward, however, Trump officials are planning to impose another major round of tariffs using Section 301, designed to cope with unfair foreign trading practices. In particular, they’re proposing tariffs on 60 (!) countries, including Canada, the UK and the European Union, that they accuse of violating rules against international trade in goods produced with forced labor.
Wait — is the administration accusing Canada and Europe of using slave labor to produce their exports? No, they’re saying that these countries’ governments are guilty of “failure to impose and effectively enforce a ban on the importation of goods produced with forced labor,” and that these failures “burden or restrict U.S. commerce.” In other words, they’re going to slap tariffs on Canada, not because they claim that Canada uses slave labor, but because China does, and they claim that Canada is hurting America because it isn’t doing enough to stop those slave-produced goods from entering its own market.
But sure, let’s get mad that they won’t send military assets to the mess in the Persian Gulf.
Yet, Politico reports: ‘Never heard him so angry’: Trump is furious that global allies aren’t pitching in in Iran.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday fumed at longtime American allies he says aren’t doing enough to help the U.S. and Israel in their war against Iran, now arguing that their assistance was never needed after spending days publicly requesting their help.
“Because of the fact that we have had such Military Success, we no longer ‘need,’ or desire, the NATO Countries’ assistance — WE NEVER DID!” he wrote on Truth Social. “Likewise, Japan, Australia, or South Korea. In fact, speaking as President of the United States of America, by far the Most Powerful Country Anywhere in the World, WE DO NOT NEED THE HELP OF ANYONE!”
One might find it both confusing that he both demands their help and fumes that we don’t need them.
Has anyone ever commented that the president often acts like a spoiled small child? No doubt, I am the first to make such an observation!
Meanwhile, he continues to fundamentally misunderstand NATO.
The president, who has long sown doubt in the value of NATO and mused about pulling the U.S. out of the alliance, on Sunday cautioned that NATO allies faced a “very bad future” if they refrained from aiding U.S. efforts to reopen the waterway. But their reticence did not come as a shock, he wrote on his social media platform Tuesday.
“I am not surprised by their action, however, because I always considered NATO, where we spend Hundreds of Billions of Dollars per year protecting these same Countries, to be a one way street — We will protect them, but they will do nothing for us, in particular, in a time of need,” Trump said.
This inspires a number of thoughts, not the least of which is to ask how this problem created “a time of need”? Also, is Trump ignorant enough not to understand the vital role the US NATO plays and has played for decades? (Spoiler: yes, he is; just as he doesn’t seem to understand that the US is part of NATO, not some outside partner.)
Beyond the poor strategic thinking and bullying “diplomacy” of it all, this is all counter to the bluster of the administration and its allies about how powerful the US is. If two weeks into this mess we already need help, that kind of blunts all the tough talk about Hegseth and company, now doesn’t it?
As the German Foreign Minister, Boris Pistrorious, rightly asked:
“What does … Donald Trump expect a handful or two handfuls of European frigates to do in the Strait of Hormuz that the powerful U.S. Navy cannot do?”
This is both a legitimately good question and an embarrassing rebuke of the Trump administration.
There is little doubt that our armed forces are doing a great deal of damage to Iran’s military capabilities. But anyone who understands anything about these situations knows at least three key things.
First, you aren’t going to create regime change from the air (and even a full-scale invasion doesn’t guarantee such an outcome).
Second, a war in the Persian Gulf was going to have global effects on the energy market.
Third, closing the Strait of Hormuz was always a potential weapon. Even some dumb blogger noted the possibility during the “12-Day War.” Commenters at the time noted this was unlikely, as such a move would lead to escalation on the US’s part. Well, since the US decided to go ahead and escalate in advance, no one should have been surprised that Iran used one of its key tools.
Meanwhile, Fox News viewers are getting told how great things are going. Brit Hume’s smug dismissal here is pretty stunning. I would note that the Joe Scarborough quote in the clip is one point: we could win all the battles and still lose the war. Hume is right, of course, we are doing an excellent job of raining down death and destruction on Iran, but the questions of to what end, and what cost, cannot be ignored.
“You could go back to Vietnam” is an interesting flex, given that it’s just a regurgitation of the notion that we only lost Vietnam because of the media coverage or because squishes on the home front didn’t let the military do its thing. The reality is that Vietnam was another case wherein the US was clearly militarily superior, but the political goals were ultimately unachievable.* Also, the reason that there was a lot of negative media coverage of Vietnam is that there was a lot of negative news out of Vietnam.
But if you want to make Britt Hume look good, here’s Stephen Miller:
Again, no one is questioning the ability of the US to create massive damage against the regime. I even understand, in the abstract, how such a message will make a lot of Fox News viewers believe that all is well.
But this focus on the current destructive capacity of the US military ignores the fact that Iran still has the power, because of the Strait of Hormuz, to foment a global economic crisis. We have yet to find the military solution to that problem. And if we do, it may come at a high cost that will make all of this triumphalism sound a bit hollow.
And, to the point of all the clips that Hume poo-poos above: what happens next?
The rest of the world seems to see the debacle that is unfolding here, and Israel is just happy to see Iran degraded as much as possible.
But if at the end of the day we have spent billions, degraded our weapons stockpiles, and helped create global economic problems all while leaving Iran in the hands of an angrier, more repressive version of the previous regime, the folly of all of this will be obvious, and the reticence of the rest of the world to get involved will be vindicated.
And man, the goodwill of the US, which had been a massive source of strength, has been squandered by this president.
*To be clear, a discussion of Vietnam is more complicated than a passing paragraph.
Shield of the Hormuz!
Gosh, treating your allies like garbage for months on end has consequences? Who could have known [international relations] would be so complicated? /s
Honestly, I’m just baffled that people believe in this clownish administration. And Hume should be well and truly ashamed of himself, but that appears to be impossible with these people.
About that, here is someone who has long known him:
“Mary Trump”
I find it pretty hilarious that Trump doesn’t seem to realize that he has already effectively killed NATO. Nobody trusts the US to honor its treaty obligations anymore. Worse: I bet that Russia and China don’t expect the US to do so either, which means that NATO as a deterrent is dead and buried already.
The only reason that Mark Rutte appears to fellate Trump on a daily basis is that Europe needs US arms production, logistics, and intelligence for Ukraine RIGHT NOW.
The Euros are squeezing the last useful bits out of the corpse that once used to be a (mostly) mutually advantageous arrangement.
And who knows? Perhaps there is somehow still some life left once Trump is gone. But I very much doubt that many European governments are counting on that.
to whom other than to those of us for which it is already obvious?
Of all the criticisms of Dubya, the one I found the least compelling was the idea that he was stupid. I do think he–largely deliberately–played up a country-bumpkin image, and he had a somewhat anti-intellectual, moral-simpleton worldview. But whatever you think of his intelligence, there’s no question he was surrounded by smart people. The failure of the Iraq War wasn’t primarily due to stupidity, but to a mix of cultural ignorance (particularly regarding the Sunni/Shia split), hubris, and a lack of long-term planning–and by long-term, I mean years, not a few weeks. The first stage of the war was handled with competence, and was in fact quite successful. It’s just a war we never should have entered in the first place.
Not only is Trump himself an actual idiot completely out of his depth, on top of age-related issues that have turned his not-especially-impressive brain to oatmeal, he’s surrounded himself by people this time who are scarcely any better. I’m convinced he believes his biggest mistake during his first term was populating his administration with somewhat qualified people willing to say no on occasion, and now we’re seeing the results of his refusal to repeat that “mistake.”
One of the myths that his current rhetoric should permanently put to rest is the idea that he’s an effective communicator. He has always been laughably, pathetically unconvincing–he sounds like the 5-year-old screaming that he didn’t take anything from the cookie jar, even as there are visible crumbs around his mouth. And now we’re seeing it play out in wartime–the war is very over but we’re staying until I say so; we’ve wiped out 100% of Iran’s military capabilities, but that doesn’t mean they can’t cause problems in the Strait; we don’t need any help from you other countries, you just ought to do your duty in aiding passage in the Strait; etc.
This rhetoric isn’t just unconvincing. It’s unconvincing to a cartoonishly obvious degree. He may be the biggest liar in history, but he’s not a good liar; he’s a ridiculously bad liar, one who tries but fails to hide what he’s really thinking. The fact that he doesn’t sound like a traditional slick, smug politician isn’t a choice he’s made, it’s literally the only way he knows how to communicate.
It’s one of the things I have always found so surreal about his rise in politics, and why I think that rise is a unique phenomenon that will never be replicated. Obviously he’s persuaded large segments of the country to his side (though the help he received from right-wing media, with people who are far better at constructing an argument and staying on point than he is, shouldn’t be overlooked). But one thing I have noticed over the years, ever since he came down that escalator, is how often his supporters seem to show a degree of awareness of how ridiculous he sounds, which they go on to rationalize away. It goes back to that line we’ve been hearing since 2016–“He should be taken seriously, not literally.” This remarkable statement, which essentially gives him a pass on anything he says, no matter how idiotic or deranged, is at bottom an implicit admission that the person finds his rhetoric indefensible on the surface, but then tries to argue that there’s another layer that’s worthy of support but which goes over the heads of his critics. The worthiness of his rhetoric is the Emperor’s New Clothes–everyone can see it ain’t there, but some people think the problem is with our eyes.
Enough American voters were gullible enough to go along, but that’s far less likely to be true about world leaders in a legitimately scary escalation.
He doesn’t want their military help. He needs their political cover.
But again that’s not how any of this works.
He doesn’t want their military help. He needs their political cover.
But again that’s not how any of this works.
I figure he treats his employees exactly the same way he treats foreign countries. You do expect an employee you’ve berated and bullied to still do their work.
Countries are not employees, and el Taco is massively upset they have agency.
@Kathy:
Not even that. It’s more like he publicly fired someone and then thinks he can still threaten to fire them.
Normally, when the hostage is dead, you’ve lost your leverage. That little detail seems to have escaped our orange genius.
Maybe i need to re-read the NATO charter? I thought it was basically a defense oriented agreement to help defend any member that was attacked, presumably by Russia when it was formed. Note that when the US was attacked the European NATO members all joined the US in attacking Afghanistan in response. In this case the US is attacking another country for vague reasons (mostly to make Israel happy) so this would not count as the US being attacked.
Steve
@steve222:
Remember on his first term he opposed admitting one of the former Yugoslavian republics, I think Montenegro, claiming they were violent people who’d get into wars with everyone, and drag NATO along?
I pointed out at the time NATO is under no obligation to support any member that starts a war, only those that are attacked.
As far as I know, NATO as an organization has undertaken two military actions. The intervention in Yugoslavia in the 90s, and the war in Afghanistan in the 2000s and 2010s. The latter, as you point out, after the US invoked Article V.