The comments made by the Vice President surfaced when Jeffrey Goldberg, the Editor-in-Chief of The Atlantic, disclosed on Monday that he had inadvertently received war plans after being added to a group chat. This group chat seemingly included Vice President JD Vance, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Analysts noted that President Trump’s decision to proceed with military action suggested his administration’s heightened focus on curbing Iran’s influence while attempting to prevent a surge in energy prices.
For over a year, an Iranian-backed militant group has been disrupting shipping activities in the Red Sea, a crucial chokepoint for international trade. In response, the Trump administration initiated airstrikes against Houthi rebels in Yemen on March 15. However, Vice President JD Vance initially described the action as a "mistake" in a text exchange with senior national security officials, expressing concerns that it was a difficult decision to justify to Americans and perceived as aiding Europe.
Goldberg revealed on Monday that he became aware of these discussions when he was accidentally included in a group chat containing sensitive war plans. This chat reportedly involved Vance, Hegseth, and Rubio. In this exchange, Vance expressed his apprehension prior to the airstrikes.
In the text conversation, Vance asserted that while the Suez Canal is vital to European trade, accounting for 40% of it, only 3% of U.S. trade relies on this route. He cautioned that the American public might not understand the significance of these actions, emphasizing the need to send a strong message, as President Trump intended.
Geopolitical strategist Marko Papic regarded Vance’s claims as simultaneously accurate and misguided, highlighting the canal’s greater importance to European trade compared to the U.S. Furthermore, Papic stated that the U.S.’s intervention aligns with its strategy to counter Iran, which has been providing support to the Houthi rebels. Protecting the global economy from oil price spikes is also a significant concern.
Though the specific statistics referenced by Vance were unclear, a January 2024 report by Allianz noted that 40% of trade between Asia and Europe passes through the Red Sea. Allianz further stressed the volatility of energy prices in Europe, with 12% of seaborne oil and 8% of liquefied natural gas transiting the Suez Canal.
Papic also criticized Vance’s belief that the U.S. could obligate Europe to bear the cost of safeguarding Red Sea shipping lanes. Although routing around Africa adds about ten days to Europe-Asia voyages, according to the Atlantic Council, the disruption caused by the Houthis has previously reduced global shipping capacity by approximately 20%.
Vance later indicated his support for the airstrikes in the group chat, with Hegseth acknowledging the vice president’s concerns about "European free-loading" but deeming the timing appropriate following President Trump’s directive to reopen shipping lanes.
The White House had not responded to a request for comment at the time of the article’s publication.
The U.S. Navy has historically overseen maritime navigation security since the 1956 Suez Crisis. Matt Gertken, BCA Research’s Chief Geopolitical and U.S. Political Strategist, noted this responsibility and expected a strong American reaction when the Houthis targeted shipping in the Red Sea. The Houthis, aligned with Iran, view themselves as part of the "axis of resistance" against Israel, the U.S., and the West.
Since late 2023, the Houthis have been implicated in attacks on over 100 merchant vessels, amidst ongoing regional conflicts. The Biden administration previously ordered strikes but faced challenges in forming a coalition to address the crisis. Concerns about an inflationary oil price shock hindered their response.
Trump’s decision to engage militarily suggests a strategic shift toward confronting Iran. The administration, initially focused on Ukraine, is now addressing threats from Iran. Hegseth, in the group chat, emphasized the need for the U.S. to act ahead of potential Israeli interventions, preferring to counter Iran’s influence early.
Fighting Iran’s proxies in the Red Sea is deemed more favorable than a broader conflict in the Strait of Hormuz, a critical oil transit route. Disruptions there could lead to stagflation, causing economic turmoil.
The complexities of these considerations, appearing to have been partly discussed via text, underscore the intricacies of Washington’s decision-making.
