Economic Fallout and Future Diplomatic Efforts

In theory, I knew that this kind of thing can happen in any family. Upstanding citizens are always turning out to be secret criminals, and I wouldn't even call my cousin Alan an upstanding citizen. But it's one thing to know, and another thing to understand. Alan mur der me. What the hell was Alan thinking? From Serial Productions and the New York Times, M Gesson, and this is the idiot. Listen wherever you get your podcast. From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Kitrow . This is the Daily . As the war in Iran enters its sixth week, even as President Trump keeps signaling that it's about to end, the fighting shows no signs of letting up. Iran continues to fire missiles at its Gulf neighbors. The Strait of Hormuz is still blocked. And just this weekend, after Iran shot down a U.S. fighter jet, the U.S. military had to conduct a massive operation to rescue a downed airman. All the while, America's closest allies in Europe continued to refuse Trump's demands for help. Today, my colleague Mark Landler explains why European countries want no part in this war and how they're getting dragged in anyway It's Monday, April 6th . Mark, for the first time in recent history, the US has gone to war without any of our European allies joining us. And it seems clear that President Trump is very mad at them because of this, to the point where Trump is now strongly suggesting again that he's gonna leave NATO, that the US is gonna pull out of NATO. Obviously, we've seen these threats before, and we've seen the transatlantic relationship stress for quite some time now. So put this moment into context for me. On a scale of one to ten , how bad is the tension between the US and our allies right now? Well, Natalie, I'd be tempted to say eight or nine on a scale of ten because the bitterness does seem to be running very deep. We're in fairly uncharted territory with a president waging war with no support and indeed growing opposition to it among virtually all his European allies. Okay. I assume this really starts with the US not telling our allies that we were about to go to war with Iran in the first place? It does, but remember, to start, you really have to go even further back. You have to look at all the accumulated scar tissue of the first year of the Trump administration. President Trump came in threatening to take over Greenland. Then he imposed tariffs on Europe. So even before Iran, you had a sense on the European side that the United States was no longer an ally and indeed, in some ways, was beginning to behave like a predator. And so all of that baggage was hanging over the relationship when the president goes to war against Iran with Israel and does not even consult Europe, does not even tell them the attack is coming. Iran, President Trump says the objective is to defend the American people by election. Today's attack could forever change the Middle East and risks a forever war of the kind Donald Trump had vowed to end. And they are on the sidelines of a conflict that has direct security implications for them.. Right And how do they respond? France was neither informed nor involved. Just like all the other countries in the region and our allies. Well, they respond very cautiously. We call for maximum restraint in the use of force, respect for the lives of civilians, and the search for a diplomatic way out of this case. not criticizing the president in any direct way. The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes . But we have long been clear. The regime in Iran is utterly abhorrent. Even as they acknowledge that this was not an operation they were involved in, but regardless of that, President Trump soon begins asking the Europeans for help. In some ways, it's easy stuff , giving them overflight rights to use European airspace. Some are more complicated. The United States did make a request to use British bases to launch strikes that they call defensive strikes. Letting the United States use military bases on European soil. And what do our European allies do when Trump starts making those requests? Some countries flat out refuse. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has denied U.S. requests to use his country's bases as part of the operation. Some countries are more willing to negotiate. now . But Iran is pursuing a scorched earth strategy. So we are supporting the collective self-defense of our allies and our people in the region. Because Europe is not involved in this, they're willing to offer help for defensive and logistical operations, but not for offensive military operations. And that quickly becomes a complicated balance for them to walk . And so how does Trump see that? That commitment to only do defensive actions, but not to join up in anything offensive. Trump's view is that Europe is not stepping up, is not backing a NATO ally, and he's pretty quick to level that criticism at them. President Trump threatens to cut off trade relations with Spain. By the way, I'm not happy with the UK either. Trump says that Prime Minister Keir Starmer of Britain is quote not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with? No Winston Churchill, but European countries in in relatively modest but symbolically important ways stand up to Trump, and that of course just deepens the tension even further. My sense, Mark, is that despite that red line that Europe draws, they have started to get pulled in more and more into this conflict. Can you just describe the extent of what they've actually done up until this point? Well, you're right. Europe does get drawn in uh almost inevitably for a couple of reasons. One is that some European countries, Britain and France notably, have military bases in the region or near the region. And some of those bases are inevitably targeted by Iranian drones or Iranian missiles. So Europe is drawn in in terms of defending its own bases. It's also drawn in because European countries have security agreements with countries in the region, with Kuwait, with the UAE. And so European planes are in the air over places like the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait, helping defend those countries from Iranian attacks. And then of course Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world's most strategic waterways, and the place through which about a fifth of Europe's oil and gas flows, and puts Europe's leaders in an incredibly difficult position because then Trump asks the Europeans to step up and forcibly reopen it, and the Europeans refuse . After that, things start getting even more turbul ent. In a speech, Trump lashes out specifically at NATO. They're a paper tiger , but uh so we didn't need them, but I I asked anyway. He says he doesn't even need their help. And that the US doesn't need any more oil. So the strait of Ramouz is no longer his problem. So let them do it. Let France do it. They get a lot of oil from the strait. Let the European countries do it. He's telling the Allies to go get your own oil. And uh things really reach a kind of crescendo with this tit for tat between Trump and President Mac ron of France. Whose wife treats him extremely badly. And still recovering from the right to the job. You saw President Trump making fun of an incident involving Macron and his wife. Oh wow. He even imitates Macron's accent when describing their conversation about the French supporting the efforts in Iran. No no no . Cannot do that, Donald. We can we can do that after the war is won. Macron strikes back. The remarks I heard that you're referring to are neither elegant nor appropriate. So I'm not going to respond to them. They don't deserve a response. By questioning both the worthiness of using that kind of language during wartime, but also questioning Trump as a wartime leader. Don't forget sérieux. So we have to be serious. When we want to be serious, we don't say the opposite of what we said the day before every day. And maybe we shouldn't talk every day. Okay . So everyone is increasingly frustrated with each other at this point. What exactly has Trump's argument been for the reason that our European allies should be involved in this? Well you can boil it down to sort of two. One is the threat of Iran getting a nuclear weapon is every bit as imminent a threat to Europe as it is to Israel or the United States. But beyond that, Europe, he says, lies within range of Iran's ballistic missiles. Now that's a somewhat debatable proposition, but it is true that Europe is thousands of miles closer to Iran than the United States. So theoretically, European capitals, Berlin, Paris, London, could eventually, if not already, be within range of Iranian missiles. So what the president is saying to European leaders is don't kid yours elves. The nuclear threat is as big a danger for you as it is for us, and the missile threat is a bigger deal for you than it is for us. And even beyond that, Donald Trump's making an even more simple argument . Friends help friends. These countries are all members of NATO. One of the core principles of the NATO alliance is enshrined in Article V , which says that if any member of the Alliance comes under attack, the other members of the Alliance will step up to defend it. This is in principle what Donald Trump is invoking here. Of course, what European leaders are saying to him is the U .S. wasn't attacked in this case. This is not a case that invokes Article V. Aaron Powell, Jr. So is that the main reason why they're not joining the U.S. and Iran? Because the U.S. wasn't attacked but launched the attacks first? I think the Europeans have a number of issues, but one of the most basic is there's a deep skepticism that military strikes are gonna solve the problem s that the president says they're gonna solve. Specifically on the nuclear issue. The president has not made a compelling and convincing argument that a full-scale military campaign is going to accomplish the goal of eradicating the nuclear program. They point out that the highly enriched uranium that lies under these already destroyed Iranian facilities is going to be very hard to get at. That Iran's already been crippled in its nuclear program by previous strikes led by the United States and Israel. And so the idea of starting a full-blown war just doesn't seem persuasive to them. Aaron Powell It sounds like they're essentially not agreeing with the strategy behind the war or the justification for it. Is another reason for their reluctance, just that they're looking at the situation in the Strait of Hormuz and assessing that there actually may be very little that they can do to help reopen it. Yeah, that's a very important point. Germany had sort of asked, well, what is it that we can Right. And other European leaders have repeatedly said it's difficult to see a solution in the Strait of Hormuz during the conflict that does not simply put our ships and our service people at risk and doesn't necessarily solve the problem. Aaron Powell And is that true, Mark? Like w what could they do, actually? Well, Europe has a couple of competencies. One is uh in the area of clearing mines. They do have minesweeping ships. There is a very healthy debate about whether Iran has actually laid mines in the Strait of Hormuz , but if there was evidence they had, the Europeans could send minesweepers. The Europeans could also send frigates to escort oil tankers through the strait. That is something that European navies have . The problem with that is if you're doing it during the conflict, those frigates would be targets for Iranian drones and short range missiles and all kinds of incoming fire. And so I think European leaders are dead set against doing that while the conflict is raging. They might be open to doing it after the conflict as a way of bolstering the confidence of the shipping companies . Just this past week, France actually got a ship through the strait. We don't know exactly how it happened, but it suggests that there are possible other methods like cutting deals with Iran, which of course would further antagonize President Trump. So basically the Europeans could do something, but the options they have are limited and sort of fraught. And it generally seems as though they are pretty uneasy Aaron Powell Yeah, that's right. I mean, for them they see all kinds of downside risk for very little, if any, upside benefit. And remember, there's a lot of history hanging over this. Specifically, there are two wars hanging over it. The first was in Afghanistan, a war that began after the nine eleven attacks on the US when NATO did rally to the defense of the United States. Right. European troops fought alongside the Americans in Afghanistan, which of course turned out to be a grinding two-decade-long conflict that ended with the Taliban recapturing the country. Was in some ways an encyclopedia of everything that is hard about nation building. In Iraq , which was very different, that was a a war of choice rather than a war of necessity, and it was not supported universally. Remember, Britain supported it, but Germany and France uh both steer clear of it , believing that the president at the time, George W. Bush, had not made a compelling case that a full-scale military invasion was the only and best option in this case. And Iraq has really been a source of trauma in Europe for many years. A lengthy, difficult conflict with all kinds of collateral effects that ended very unsatisfactorily in Britain, which supported the war, it was so unpopular that it really poisoned the legacy of Prime Minister Tony Blair and caused years of recrimination. So as these political leaders look at Iran, they are looking at it very much through the lens of Iraq and all the bad memories they have of that war. Okay, so given that history, it makes sense why the Europeans don't want to be in this war and why they would resist as much as possible any effort to pull them in, even as things get worse and worse on the ground. Yeah, it certainly does. But as you say, the situation is getting worse and worse . Europe, which was already in the grip of an energy crisis, is now facing skyrocketing prices for heating oil, for gasoline, it's beginning to bleed into the political systems in all these countries. And so the crisis, whether Europe wants it or not, has arrived at its doorstep, and whether it can avoid the war is no longer clear . This podcast is supported by Nerdtech ODT Remegipant. We know you didn't ask for an interruption, but migraine doesn't wait for the right moment to interrupt either. It just barges in, takes your time, and throws everything off. So when migraine takes your time, take Nerte ch. It's for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. NERTEC can provide pain relief in two hours, which can last up to two days. Ask your healthcare provider if NERTEC is right for you, because your time is for you, not migraine. Don't take if allergic to NERTEC ODT. Allergic reactions can occur even days after use. Get help right away for trouble breathing, rash, swelling of face, mouth, tongue, or throat. High blood pressure and Rhino syndrome can occur. Get help for high blood pressure, numbness, coolness, pain, or color changes in fingers and toes. Common side effect is nausea. For full prescribing information, call 1-833-4NERTech or visit ner tech.com. All right, back to your podcast. Mark, as unfair as it may seem to Europe, as much as they want to stay out of it, the war has affected the global economy, as you said. And Europe does depend heavily on the oil coming through the strait. So they're implicated, whether they like it or not. Yeah, they are. There's an injustice in this, if you like. They didn't want to have anything to do with this war. They weren't consulted on it. They have deep reservations about it. And yet they can't stay out of it altogether because it has become their war as well. Across Europe, you see all kinds of signs of distress. In Germany, a gallon of diesel fuel is now over nine dollars. Natural gas prices have skyrocketed in Britain. You're seeing all kinds of potential political upheaval. Governments are beginning to talk about very costly bailout problems. Governments' fiscal plans are being upended because suddenly there are these huge payments being demanded to cover these energy shortfalls. So across the continent, you just see a ripple effect where the war has changed everything. Okay, so there is, as you're noting, a real tension between not wanting to be involved at all, but also experien cing very real pain as a result of this war. I can also imagine that on top of all of that, Europe relies on the US for their security, and there is a risk in pissing Trump off, right? There is indeed. And in fact, one of the linkages that has been in the mind of every European leader is between this conflict and Ukraine. If you antagonize President Trump too much on Iran, he might pull American support from Ukraine, and that is of course a direct security concern for the Europeans. So there is a real sense of reliance on the part of Europe on the United States and a real reluctance to ali enate the president so badly that he lashes out in other areas For example, with tariffs, right? I mean, we've seen in the past that Trump has punished countries with tariffs. But I'm actually wondering, Mark, if our European allies have become a little more emboldened to stand up to Trump than maybe they would have been in the past because the Supreme Court recently ruled that a lot of those tariffs were illegal. Do you think that was a factor here? I do. I think that the president had two levers. One was Ukraine, and the other was economic through tariffs. And the Europeans were desperate to head off the worst of the tariffs. Well, now the Supreme Court has done a bit of their work for them. Doesn't mean there won't be any tariffs, but the White House is back to the drawing board on how they're going to impose tariffs, what authorities they're going to use, and it has left the situation much more murky , but also raise the prospect that Europe is not going to face that particular form of leverage. And it is something that I think is causing them to feel somewhat bolder toward the presidentaron Powell And what about the domestic politics of this for these European leaders? How are these specific politicians dealing with the potential fallo ut of both getting involved or not getting involved? at home Well, it's interesting and it differs depending on what party the politicians are are from. In Italy, Giorgio Maloney, who is the leader of a far right party, has actually kind of developed a reputation as a Trump whisperer. She's viewed as someone who Trump trusts who can talk to Trump. But she governs in a country where Trump is very unpopular. And in fact, in the last couple of weeks, the government lost a judicial reform referendum. And one of the reasons that they may have lost this vote is because of a public backlash on the war in Iran. So this has put Malone in y a very difficult position. In Britain, on the other hand, you have a Labour Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. He's worked very hard to cultivate a respectful relationship with President Trump, as we discussed earlier, it didn't shield him from being insulted by President Trump. But in Britain, it's actually kind of worked in Starmer's favor because he's been able to show his independence and stand up to the president in a way that is popular with a lot of the voters in Britain who don't like Trump. So it's a different picture in different countries, but in all of these countries, the leaders are walking the same difficult balance , which is how do we stay out of a war that our publics don't like or support? But how do we look like we're doing everything we can to prevent an energy crisis from taking over our economies. Aaron Ross Powell But for now, as far as I understand it, they're still mostly holding the line on not getting dragged into the war, at least not in the way that Trump wants. And it seems as though our allies are essentially saying: look, we actually have no obligation to help in that way. The letter of the law under NATO is that you only get involved in wars to defend each other after you've been attacked. But Mark, does Trump have a point that the spirit of NATO is that the Allies lock arms and act together in extreme circumstan ces. Take Ukraine, for example. Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and yet after Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the US got involved and spent billions of taxpayer dollars to help. So is Trump's expectation that the Europe ans should step up now fair? Well, that is certainly how Donald Trump and his allies see it. And as you say, they cite Ukraine as a perfect example of why Europe should step up in this case. But if you look at the history of NATO and if you talk to historians of the alliance, it's really not a very good analogy. NATO members are not obligated to blindly follow the military adventures of other members, particularly if they think they're unwise or poorly thought out. Right. And the best example of this is back in the nineteen fifties, the Suez Crisis, when Britain and France allied with Israel in an operation against Egypt, and the United States stepped in to oppose it because they thought it was wrongheaded. It caused severe strains in the alliance, but it laid a predicate for the way that NATO members should behave, particularly if they don't support what another NATO member is doing. So the history of NATO is not one of unanimity in every conflict. It is, after all, an alliance of democratic countries who have their own democra cies and their own political systems to deal with. So I think the obligation for a NATO member is to give another NATO member a fair hearing to listen to their argument and if they support it, to join, but absent Article V , they are not obligated to do so, and in this case they have decided not to. You saw it in Iraq, but even before that, you saw it in the Suez crisis. So given everything you've described, this tightrope that our European allies are walking, what do they do? What are their options? Well, they don't have great options, but they are working on a couple of different levels. On a diplomatic level, the Europeans are continuing to deploy what have been tried and true weapons in the past. King Charles is going to the United States on a state visit. Trump loves the royals. Trump loves the royals. And although there have been some voices in Britain asking why is this a good time for King Charles to go to the U.S., they're forging ahead with the trip, and I think their calculation is that it will buy them some goodwill. It will be a reminder to the president of why he values Britain as an ally and it will maybe smooth out some of these rough edges. For the Europeans as a whole , on a more gritty operational level, they are starting to make plans for how to secure the Strait of Hormuz after this war is over. The British organize a virtual conference call of thirty-five countries to talk about what this coalition might look like, what countries would contribute to it, what sorts of military assets would be deployed, whether it would be minesweepers or escort ships. And uh there's going to be further, even more operational meetings about putting this whole coalition together. This coalition does not include the United States , much as the coalition of the willing that the Europeans have put together to secure a ceasefire in Ukraine also doesn't include the United States. But really both of these efforts underscore the limitations the Europeans face. In the case of Ukraine and the coalition of the willing, there's a general recognition that unless the United States stays involved offers some form of security guarante es, this whole effort really doesn't have a lot of teeth to it. And likewise, I think, with the coalition that would secure the Strait of Hormuz, if the United States doesn't put its military might and its credibility behind an effort to keep the straight open, it's really highly unlikely that the Europeans are going to be able to do it on their own. So while these efforts show how Europe is grappling with , if you will, a post-American world, it's also revealing why the United States remains such a central part of the equation. Yeah, we've been talking a lot about the divergence between the US and its European allies. But what you're saying raises the question of how viable it is for the two sides to split for this relationship to actually rupture long term , it doesn't seem possible really. Both sides are truly invested in it. Aaron Powell Yeah, that's right. Europe and the United States are really almost like uh married couple that's hit a very rough patch. They may be even living in different houses, but they share so many assets. They have so many common interests that the price of splitting is perhaps even higher than the pain of figuring out how to stay together. For Europe, staring down the barrel of an economic crisis and a security crisis, the price of divorcing from the United States is still probably too painful. Well, Mark, thank you so much. Thank you, Natalie. On Easter Sunday, after receiving no assistance from U.S allies in securing the Strait of Hormuz, Trump again threatened Iran, suggesting he would strike Iranian energy infrastructure on Tuesday if the regime didn't end its blockade . In a profane social media post, Trump said, open the fucking straight, you crazy bastards, or you'll be living in hell. Just watch. We'll be right back I'm Jonathan Swan. I'm a White House reporter for the New York Times. I have a pretty unsentimental view of what we do. Our job as reporters is to dig out information that powerful people don't want published. To take you into rooms that you would not otherwise have access to to understand how some of the big decisions shaping our country are being made. And then painstakingly to go back and check with sources, check with public documents, make sure the information is correct. This is not something you can outsource to AI. There's no robot that can go and talk to someone who was in the situation room and find out what was really said. In order to get actually original information that's not public