President Donald Trump, who went to war against Iran with only Israel at America’s side, is now imploring other countries to join the United States in a military operation to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
In weekend social media posts, Mr. Trump said the U.S. had asked seven countries to join in an effort to secure the vital Persian Gulf waterway through which 20% of global crude oil shipments pass.
He also forewarned any that decline the request, “We will remember.”
Why We Wrote This
President Donald Trump’s appeal for help reopening the Strait of Hormuz, the vital Persian Gulf shipping lane that Iran has closed, has received a cool reception from U.S. allies that feel mistreated and weren’t consulted before Mr. Trump’s decision to go to war.
But the early response of European and Asian allies and partners that were never consulted about this war before it was launched has been reluctant at best.
Japan, Australia, Italy, and Germany have already said no, while others have responded tepidly that they are considering the request. Britain said it could eventually deploy robot minesweepers.
Treatment of allies
Some have punctuated their “no” with not-so-veiled criticism of Mr. Trump’s unilateral decision to go to war. “This is not our war; we have not started it,” said German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius.
And Mr. Trump should not have expected anything better, say many analysts and longtime diplomats, given both the way the war was launched and what they call the president’s dismissive and threatening approach to allies.
“You don’t build a coalition after you go to war. You build a coalition with weeks and months of diplomacy before you go to war so that when situations like this come up, you have others at your side,” says Aaron David Miller, a Middle East analyst with decades of diplomatic experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations.
No one should be surprised, then, least of all in the administration, that countries are not jumping at the president’s request.
“This is quite extraordinary, going to war without consulting with allies, not to mention completely underestimating the capacity of your adversary,” adds Dr. Miller, now a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington.
By comparison, Dr. Miller points to the months of diplomacy and even hat-passing that President George H.W. Bush undertook before launching the 1991 Gulf War that followed Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait. Even President George W. Bush took great pains to build a “coalition of the willing” despite the unpopularity of the 2003 Iraq war.
Others say allies and partners that once would have thought twice before turning down a U.S. request are now more open to crossing a leader who has dealt with them largely through threats and even derision.
Loss of trust
“The response we’re seeing, especially among the Europeans, is the culmination of the way Trump has treated allies – everything from threatening to seize the territory [Greenland] of a NATO ally [Denmark] to the administration’s declaration of Europe’s ‘civilizational decline,’” says Bruce Jentleson, a former State Department Middle East expert who is now a professor of public policy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina.
The problem for Mr. Trump, he adds, “is that there is no longer any trust.”
And trust is key in the making of any diplomatic and military coalition, he says.
“There is no trust in Trump’s judgment in conducting the war, nor is there any trust that he would take their perspective or counsel into account,” Professor Jentleson says. “The Europeans have learned that if you give Trump any concessions, he’s just going to come back for more.”
President Trump said in an interview with the Financial Times on Sunday that NATO faces a “very bad future” if the European allies do not heed the U.S. call.
Nevertheless, it would take “weeks and months” to put together and carry out a complex campaign to secure the Strait of Hormuz, Dr. Miller says, noting that other countries would likely be wary of the ramifications of joining the U.S.-Israeli war.
“It may be fair to say that the Chinese, for example, would be among the first to benefit from opening the strait, as they normally import 1.4 million barrels a day” that ship through Hormuz, he says. “But I find it hard to believe that given all the risks involved, they are going to allow themselves to be drawn into this crisis.”
Moreover, China is most likely weighing the benefits of sitting back and watching the U.S. dig itself deeper into the Iran quagmire, Dr. Jentleson says.
“The more the U.S. is seen as a disrupter – and worse – of the global order, the more the Chinese would see that as acting to their benefit,” he says. “Chinese interests don’t require them to put themselves at risk in a conflict of Washington’s making. They are more likely assessing the situation overall and concluding, ‘Why bail the U.S. out?’”