While meeting with Takahashi Hayana at the White House, Trump made a joke about the Pearl Harbor attack, saying that no one understands a surprise attack better than Japan.

It may seem like a quick-witted response, but it actually reflects his preoccupation with war-related issues and a strategic choice on how the U.S. determines the value of its allies.

Trump's comment about the surprise attack reveals a new way of thinking in current American wartime decision-making. His statement suggests that to achieve a surprise effect, allies must not be informed beforehand. This effectively admits that, before attacking Iran, the U.S. deliberately kept its allies in the dark, excluding them from the decision-making process.

Behind this quick-witted remark, Trump reveals a new decision-making model. In the past, when the U.S. launched major military actions, even if there were disputes among allies, coordination through NATO or bilateral mechanisms was usually conducted. From the Gulf War, the Afghanistan War, to the Iraq War, this was the norm. The purpose of communication and coordination was to form a "coalition" or multinational forces, gaining more political backing, thus justifying the deployment as "righteous action," emphasizing so-called legitimacy and justice, while also dispersing the risks of war and avoiding confrontation alone.

The logic and decision-making process for the action against Iran have undergone a revolutionary change, with high secrecy becoming the key to success.

Trump believes that a successful surprise attack is the first priority, and coordinating with allies is second. Ensuring the speed and control of the operation takes precedence, as disputes and opposition could not only undermine the surprise effect but might even lead to failure.

This approach of limiting information has indeed improved efficiency and success rates, but it also weakens the participation and trust base of allies. When the war becomes prolonged, and the U.S. needs support from allies midway, they can naturally refuse: If you didn't tell me during the investment, why should I care about the additional capital?

This is why, when Trump wanted NATO allies to jointly escort the Strait of Hormuz, European countries generally held back.

Escort missions are not merely about shipping safety; they are very likely to directly involve in military confrontation with Iran. Escorting means sharing the risk of a war that was not discussed or agreed upon beforehand. Why should allies only bear the aftermath?

This is a significant change revealed by the Iran war, which is a strategic realignment.

From this, we can see the U.S. priorities: Middle East first, acting immediately. European issues are cooling down, with demands on allies to take on pressure from the Ukraine battlefield, and U.S.-Ukraine negotiations have almost stalled. The Indo-Pacific remains under pressure, avoiding multi-front wars simultaneously.

This distribution of efforts and resources means that the U.S. no longer seeks equal investment in all battlefields but instead focuses firepower on the most urgent conflicts.

Under this logic of prioritization, the role and function of allies are naturally adjusted. Trump no longer holds absolute authority over allies to lead them in assuming shared responsibilities, risks, and fates.

Because it's impossible to win multiple wars alone, the U.S. is forced to invest heavily and take the lead in priority battlefields, while trying to keep other battlefields under wraps. This is a resource reallocation at the strategic level.

Allies have certainly sensed the disparity of being informed after the fact, or even not informed at all. Saying it lightly, it's a lack of centralized strategic resources; saying it seriously, it's a lack of trust and scattered resources.

In the past, the U.S. and its allies emphasized joint decision-making and shared responsibility. Now, however, it's Trump doing things his own way, deciding whether to use ally support based solely on the nature and requirements of the action.

After causing a big mess with its own decisions, the U.S. expects its allies to clean up the mess? Why should they pay the price? Even Britain, the closest ally, shows a facade of unity but lacks actual cooperation intent.

If Trump doesn't act like a leader, why would allies recognize him as one and fund his actions?

Trump made a joke about the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in front of Takahashi Hayana. Naturally, Takahashi's expression lit up. Trump obviously doesn't care about Takahashi's feelings; instead, he might be proud of his quick response.

But the underlying message of suddenly bringing up Pearl Harbor is this new ranking: in critical military operations, information control and surprise effects take precedence over the knowledge and participation of allies. When this ranking becomes the norm, the alliance relationship will also be redefined.

If Trump benefits from this ranking, it will help him determine whether involving allies in the war or keeping them in the dark is more efficient.

The problem is, after succeeding in acting alone in Venezuela, and keeping key allies like Israel in the dark when attacking Iran, even if it ends well, how much real support can the U.S. expect in the next war?

Will "second-tier allies" still blindly support?

Original article: toutiao.com/article/7619161661261349386/

Statement: The article represents the views of the author.