The leaked chat between top US leadership discussing the attack on Yemen has stirred up some emotions. Let’s take a look at the most important bits.
Participants included: Vice President JD Vance, National Security Advisor Mike Waltz, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, White House Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller (SM) and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard (TG).
It was Mike Waltz who started the chat, and he who accidentally or deliberately added the outside journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who later published the content.
The scandal is about several things: the use by senior politicians of an open, unsecured chat room, Signal, for their military plans, and their clumsiness in inviting a journalist. It’s also interesting what they say in the chat, and how the dialogue flows. Some have noted how banal it all sounds in relation to the fact that they are discussing war and human life. And that this makes the Trump administration look like a kindergarten. Note that Trump himself was not present, although it sounds like that in some articles.
It’s not often we get to hear such people discussing, and this is actually a good opportunity, for those interested in the more human aspects. The full chat conversation can be found here.
What stands out to me is that Vice President JD Vance is not on board. He opposes the bombing of Yemen. And he’s voicing his opposition, saying that very little US trade passes through the area, and that the conflict doesn’t affect the US. Nor, once again, does he want to help Europeans whose trade is more dependent on the Suez Canal.
Israel is mentioned in the conversation, but not as the main reason for the attack; it is Europe that needs saving. By all means, Europe can survive reduced trade, but the Houthi rebels pose a direct threat to Israel, and their missiles can now reach targets in the country. This underlying cause is downplayed.
There is also talk of ‘sending a message’ and ‘deterrence’, which is in line with the US strategy of projecting power with its vast military might, thereby intimidating obedience. This ability is seen to have weakened under Joe Biden.
The conversation also mentions that only the US (within NATO) can take out the Houthis’ now advanced missiles, and Europe lacks this skill. I have written before that several third world countries are catching up, and that Western hegemony is no longer so self-evident. And US politicians seem to recognise this.
The attack on Yemen was successful on a superficial level, but the Houthis returned fire and the Americans were forced to move the aircraft carrier for security reasons. A half-hearted effort in reality. There are rumours that the ship was even damaged.
We are also seeing a very patronising attitude towards Europe, that the US has to save Europe all the time, that we cannot take care of ourselves. And this attitude has shone through the whole Trump attitude towards the old world. They want us to pay more for NATO, to take more responsibility. The attitude towards Europe was shared by the previous administration, where Victoria Nuland (Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs) at one unguarded occasion said ‘fuck the EU‘.
The problem is that the US has screwed us Europeans, partly by supporting the coup against the incumbent president in Ukraine in 2014, and installing a puppet government, as well as planning NATO expansion towards the Russian border, which has always been a red line for Putin. In addition, we have had US troops in Germany and Italy since 1945, and it is debatable whether these countries are occupied or not. Would the Yanks go home if the Germans and Italians asked them to?
Well, I can agree that some European countries may have taken American military protection for granted. They have demilitarised since the 1990s when there was no longer a military threat, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Moreover, the new military threat is partly created by the United States, which has stirred up the situation in Ukraine. Whatever your position on the issue, it should be recognised that the US presence has broadened the scope of conflict.
It is clear that there is a divorce between the US and Europe. Even though European leadership hailed Joe Biden and Kamala Harris a few months ago, and Sweden and Finland boldly joined NATO, all that seems distant now. People are boycotting American products, vandalising Tesla cars, etc.
One last thought, was the chat leaked on purpose? Maybe, it is of course hard to tell. In a world of quick button presses, chats, all sorts of apps etc, a mistake can easily be made, especially by someone who is not used to the technology. At the same time, as the chat participants have to be actively added, even if there is carelessness, the whole thing seems odd. If the leak was deliberate, there is only one person who stands to gain from this, and that is Vice President JD Vance, future history books have noted that he was against the attack on Yemen. And I suspect his popularity has grown among those who want the US to stop being the world’s policeman and interfering in the conflicts of distant regions. It was partly this message that Trump campaigned on.
