There’s a way the military could present that to him that actually might get his attention in a way that just saying, What about the Strait of Hormuz, it could tank the global economy seemingly didn’t get his attention.
Bacon: Do we think they said it that directly? That’s what I’m not sure about. Because afterward it seems like they were focused on that, but all the previews I saw [talked about] regime change—I never saw “oil prices will jump up.” I don’t know, did—
Saunders: I think it’s implied. My former colleague Caitlin Talmadge wrote this article, “Closing Time: Assessing Iranian Threats to the Strait of Hormuz,” and some things have changed since then, drones were not really what they are now—but basically, they could mine it, and in order to get rid of the mines, or to stop the attacks from the shore, you’d have to basically attack the Iranian shore. It’s a really hard problem. And why do you care? Because of oil.
It’s just implied. If the military people said, It’s not the military’s job to worry about the price of oil, it is the job of his political advisors and the secretary of energy, who made some claims this weekend about where gas is going to go. If they’re not connecting the dots for him, that’s also on them. I just don’t know.
Nothing surprises me. Would it surprise me if Rubio convinces him to do Cuba next? No. Would it not surprise me if he says no and walks away? Then I don’t know what he’s going to do with this blockade of Cuba—is he just going to starve them to death, which he’s sort of already doing? It’s dreadful all the way around. But I don’t actually know what particular version of dreadful—it’s the madman theory, but all the outcomes are horrible.
Bacon: Let me finish by asking—you saw the pope, the leader of Italy who is a far-right person, Starmer, Macron, the Spanish prime minister—we have a drumbeat. More people, particularly in Europe, but from the far right to the left—Lula—some people you’d expect, but some unusual ones who are criticizing Trump right now. Does that matter at all, the volume of international criticism? Does that pierce inside in any way?
Saunders: I don’t think it pierces…. It’s not going to change his behavior with respect to Iran. He’s already taken action that has had dreadful consequences. In some sense it’s just—by the way, Starmer and Macron are also examples of how, to Trump, flattery doesn’t seem to work.
I have this terrible memory of Pam Bondi in the Oval Office calling him “president”—remember that? Not “Mr. President,” just “president, you did such an amazing job.” It doesn’t seem to have made any difference.
Bacon: Very little.
Saunders: Anyway, I don’t think it’s that it’s going to change his behavior, but that it’s changing the Europeans’ behavior. They have been trying to walk this very fine line of planning for the worst but trying to keep him on side. I think the real break there was Greenland—we didn’t talk about that one, but that was a really dramatic event in Europe—
Bacon: They did stop that, right? By being so emphatic.
Saunders: They did. The subsequent reporting that Denmark didn’t just send military to do the scheduled exercises—they also sent blood supplies in the event of actual combat. They did the kinds of things that you would do if you expected your soldiers to be taking fire.
They took it really seriously. It has left a real mark. They are at the point where they’re planning for, if not a true withdrawal, a de facto withdrawal from NATO, or not being able to count on the NATO commitment, which amounts to the same thing. NATO is just a promise, in the end.
If you no longer believe your friend has your back, you make alternative arrangements. It’s having an effect across the partisan spectrum, as you’ve said. Maloney and Starmer seem to be aligned on this. It’s just accelerating Europe’s detachment from the United States in the security realm. And that has a lot of complicated effects. Some people have been calling for that for a long time. Europe’s not ready to do that.
To me, the most interesting thing about the Iran war in terms of smaller countries is actually Ukraine, because as terrible as this is, in some ways, for Ukraine, for a variety of reasons—loss of American stockpiles, sanctions relief on Russia—Ukraine is now showing that it can sign these arms deals with Gulf [states] to deal with the drones, and maybe with Europe itself.
The more countries become invested in Ukraine staying sovereign and existing as a going concern geopolitically—that’s good for Ukraine. The flattery game is up, and it’s going to be interesting to see what happens next.
Bacon: Good place to close. Elizabeth, thanks for joining me—sorry about the technical difficulties—and I’ll see you soon. Thank you.
Saunders: Thank you so much.
