• Tsahkna notes increasing domestic tensions in the U.S., with even former presidents criticizing recent immigration enforcement actions.
• While no strike has occurred yet, the U.S. has the capability and may act if the situation in Iran continues to deteriorate.
• Europe must boost its own defense capacity, while maintaining strong but no longer guaranteed ties with the U.S.
• Trump's behavior is more about calculated rhetoric than true unpredictability, with calm advised over panic.

Foreign policy seems to be in such a state these days that when you wake up in the morning, you never really know what kind of world you're waking up to. As of this morning, besides what we already know — that Russia continues to commit atrocities in Ukraine — has another war broken out somewhere?

No, a new war hasn't broken out. But it's true that around five in the morning, you wake up, go to the bathroom and wonder whether or not to check your phone. If you want to sleep a bit more, you don't. Usually, though, I do pick it up and then you're awake for good because something is always happening. This morning, nothing particularly earth-shattering — except that domestic tensions in the United States have skyrocketed. Even former presidents, like President Clinton, have publicly criticized the actions of U.S. immigration enforcement. We know that midterm elections are coming: this fall, the entire U.S. Congress and a large portion of the Senate will be up for re-election. In fact, a great deal of the foreign policy we see from President Trump right now revolves around speaking directly to his voter base at home.

But how do you explain why U.S. immigration enforcement has become so aggressive? At least three people have died as a result of these actions.

Well, if we recall what President Trump promised during his campaign, he pledged to crack down on illegal immigration, build walls and fight drug-related crime. One of his trademarks in U.S. domestic policy is a "tough-on-crime" stance — arresting all the so-called bad actors who are in the country illegally and deporting them. We probably haven't seen behavior this radical before, except perhaps in the late 1950s or 1960s during the large-scale civil unrest tied to racial issues. It's something people simply aren't used to.

And when force is used, questions inevitably arise: was it really self-defense on the part of the officers or was it something else entirely? Nowadays, everything is visible immediately on social media, which only heightens tensions.

It gives the impression that things aren't exactly in order at home in the U.S., even as they try to act as the "world's police." We know that the U.S. has deployed a fairly large military contingent near Iran. Based on your best information, is an attack on Iran likely in the coming days?

We don't have any definitive information, but the United States has had its military readiness in place for some time now. About a week ago, I was in Lithuania at a conference similar to the Lennart Meri Security Conference and met with the Turkish foreign minister. He told me that just that very morning, they had helped mediate talks aimed at halting a U.S. strike that had already been planned. So, it could happen.

The numbers we're hearing from Iran — about 30,000 civilians reportedly killed in just a few days — make it clear that what's happening there is horrific. I wouldn't be surprised if the United States decides to take action.

If the U.S. does decide to act, what would be the goal? Would it bring down the current Iranian regime overnight or would it set other processes in motion?

I think it's more likely to be the latter because toppling that regime isn't so easy right now. The Riigikogu is also expected to debate and likely decide this week on whether to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps — a military wing of the regime — as a terrorist organization. That military force remains intact and the regime has survived severe crises before — they simply don't count human lives.

What's more, other countries in the region don't actually want to see the regime fall either because that would trigger total instability in a country of 90 million people. It's a cynical reality, but what a strike could achieve is forcing Iran to its knees in terms of its nuclear program and the negotiation of new agreements.

If a call comes from the U.S. State Department and your counterpart asks whether Estonia would support such a strike, what would you say?

We are very clear in our stance that this regime should not remain in power. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs has also adopted its own positions aimed at pressuring Iran through sanctions. This week, I'll be at the EU Foreign Affairs Council where Iran will be on the agenda and one of our proposals is to designate the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization at the European Union level as well.

If it's a justified and precise operation, then why not? But ultimately, that decision is not ours to make.

Why is Donald Trump, quite literally, provoking his European partners these days? Take the issue of Afghanistan, for example — he seems to suggest that European allied forces were not on the front lines. Why is he doing this?

It really is hard to understand. Allies like the United Kingdom and Estonia stood shoulder to shoulder with the United States after NATO invoked Article 5 for the first and only time in its history, following the September 11 attacks. We were there with them in Helmand where our soldiers died. In fact, Estonia has suffered the highest number of casualties per capita among the allies.

There's no justification for that kind of rhetoric — it's frankly offensive. Even if we try to excuse it by saying Trump wants to appear strong domestically and portray Europe as weak, the truth is, you don't treat your allies like that, especially those who've shed blood alongside you.

But why does he still do it? How do you explain the fact that he insults his allies, including Estonia?

His theory is that he must appear strong and Europe must appear weak. We've seen this in action over the past week and a half around the issue of Greenland where he didn't shy away from threats involving the use of force — something that shocked the entire Western world. While those particular issues have somewhat died down for now, the pressure on Europe continues.

We don't need to panic or gasp in frustration — we need to focus on what we can do. We can strengthen Europe. The political wake-up call has already sounded: the United States remains our partner, but that relationship is no longer guaranteed — it's conditional. The stronger you are yourself, the clearer and better your relationship with the U.S. will be.

As for these emotional insults — they're completely incomprehensible to me, too. Both the head of state [of Estonia] and I made that publicly clear on the international stage this past weekend.

Have European leaders now realized that the era of European independence has arrived — that it's time to step away from relying on the U.S. for defense? Beyond rhetoric, are real steps actually being taken?

First of all, I don't think we necessarily need or want to become 100 percent militarily independent from the United States. But we do need to become strong enough. For decades, Europe has underinvested in its own security and defense, but today, real steps are being taken. That process is being led primarily by Germany, which has poured in an enormous amount of money and political will into strengthening its defense. The Baltic states and Poland, of course, have always done more and continue to lead the way. Finland, too, has historically built its security posture since World War II.

Still, even as we build a stronger and more self-sufficient Europe, it remains in our interest to maintain strong transatlantic ties. And we can maintain those ties through our own strength. The military aspect is one part of it, but few people consider that the European Union is one of the United States' most important trading partners. Estonia is part of the EU and we saw that when Trump threatened EU member states with tariffs, the European Commission was able to respond firmly with counter-tariffs. That might have even been one reason why Trump softened his rhetoric about Greenland.

Estonians should keep in mind that although NATO remains and will remain our core security guarantee, the European Union — often criticized here at home — is actually a far stronger and more effective umbrella for protecting our interests than we've previously given it credit for.

In summary — does the fact that the U.S. currently has a president with a volatile temperament, who says one thing one day and something else the next, pose a risk for Ukrainians? They say they have a security guarantee, but that might not actually be the case.

The president isn't really volatile — it's more that his rhetoric can be unsettling enough to keep the faint of heart up at night. If you read the national security strategy he released last year, it clearly outlines what he plans to do. Many have not taken that document seriously, but I would strongly advise doing so.

If the United States issues a security guarantee — not just a presidential signature, but a real, formal document that passes through both the Senate and Congress — then, generally speaking, America keeps its word. But we're still a long way from that.

In Kyiv and across Ukraine, people are struggling to cope with the cold right now and it seems Putin has no intention of changing his course of military aggression. There are occasional glimmers of good news, but unfortunately, the reality on the ground is what it is.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and X and never miss an update!