Belgian Defense Minister Theo Francken may oversee a small military, but it’s one at the center of two of the world’s most consequential multilateral institutions. Belgium hosts the headquarters of NATO and the European Union, both of which have been repeatedly targeted by U.S. President Donald Trump over their perceived lack of support for his war with Iran.
Trump has intensified his talk about pulling the United States out of NATO, and his administration is reportedly weighing plans to suspend Spain from the alliance (though there is no NATO mechanism to do so) as well as drawing up a so-called “naughty and nice” list of NATO members that would impose consequences on those that have not helped the United States in its war effort.
Francken visited Washington this week, meeting with several U.S. defense officials, including Elbridge Colby—the U.S. undersecretary of defense for policy and reported author of the proposal to remove Spain from NATO—and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, a day before Hegseth testified before House lawmakers who appear increasingly exasperated with his performance.
Over a breakfast of waffles, Francken chatted with Foreign Policy about his meeting with Hegseth, the strain Trump has imposed on NATO, and Belgium’s potential role in helping to clear the Strait of Hormuz. The conversation below has been edited for length and clarity.
Foreign Policy: You met with Hegseth yesterday [Tuesday]. How was that meeting, and what did you hear from him?
Theo Francken: All my meetings went really well. I think that there was always a warm welcome, also by Mr. Hegseth. It was really a very good meeting. What we were talking about, of course, always the same: on the budgets—what is the investment of Belgium, what we are pledging, what is the future foresight on defense investments? Then on industrial cooperation—what can we do together, how can we co-produce also in Europe? What are the plans? What is the possibility? [Undersecretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment Michael Duffy] was there also. And then, of course, talking about the Strait of Hormuz, [the] Russian shadow fleet, Iran. I said we’ve got a mine hunter prepositioned to be deployed with an international coalition when there’s a stable cease-fire. We took out a vessel of the Russian shadow fleet, and we’re ready to do more, so it was very to the point.
FP: Hegseth is appearing in front of Congress today—there has been a lot of tension there with even Republican lawmakers questioning him and his ability, plus the tensions around his sudden removal of Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and Navy Secretary John Phelan.
TF: We didn’t talk about that.
FP: That didn’t come up?
FP: Sure, fair enough. But did you get the sense from talking to him that he still has the trust of this administration and he’s still in charge?
TF: Yes, he’s absolutely in charge.
FP: But does that…
FP: But as an ally, as a NATO member, given the broader tensions in the trans-Atlantic relationship, does the sudden departure of all these senior leaders in the U.S. military worry you at all, given the prominent role it occupies?
For me, the most important thing is that we keep on having this dialogue and keep on having this talk and be very friendly toward each other just by being open and clear. My name is Franck, I’m always frank, so this is just to be open and say what’s on your mind, what’s laying on your liver—I don’t know if you say it in English, but it’s an expression in Dutch—what’s in your hearts, and just speak loud, speak clear, speak frank, and then find the solution. But not always in the media, attacking each other like a really awful boxing match. Don’t do that. That’s awful.
FP: The source of a lot of the current tension with Trump is the Strait of Hormuz and the perceived lack of European involvement there. In the open, frank conversation you had with Hegseth, what were the demands or asks from the United States when it comes to European involvement?
TF: I cannot say everything that we discussed, but I can say that we are ready. We have really great demining capabilities because we have had a NATO Center of Excellence for demining in Belgium for years. That’s a niche, but it’s a niche where we’re really strong, and that means that we have led NATO demining operations. We have good personnel. We have good equipment. A Belgian mine hunter was in a NATO operation in the Baltic Sea, we’re going to be prepositioning this NATO mine hunter to go to the east Mediterranean Sea for another NATO operation, and when there’s a green light, we will deploy it in the Strait of Hormuz for the demining.
So, yeah, I explained [to Hegseth] our capabilities that we have, and he was very interested, of course, because they’re very interested to have an open Strait of Hormuz after negotiations with the Iranians.
The freedom of navigation is paramount. We have a lot of ports—Belgium is a logistic hub. Our country is one big port, actually, so, yes, we need to have freedom of navigation. It is extremely important for our country and for all the world.
FP: You said the mine hunter and the Belgian military are ready to go as soon as you get the green light. Green light from whom?
TF: So there’s a British-French “coalition of the willing” initiative, and they’re tasking everything. It’s a naval battle group that will go in when the conditions are met—we’re talking about an international mandate, but I think that we’re pretty much there. We’re talking about a stable cease-fire—we’re not going in when the ballistic missiles are going up and down. Now there is a cease-fire, we’ll see if it’s getting stable, what is the second phase of this negotiation scheme, so let’s wait.
FP: At what point would you consider the cease-fire stable enough to go in?
TF: It’s in the coalition, so we’re not alone. We are a very small partner; it will be with the French, with the Germans, the British. We’ll wait a bit. For the moment, no, but we’re not there yet. We have to be deployed. It takes weeks to go there. It’s a boat. It’s not an airplane.
FP: Belgium, Europe, and NATO have not really been involved in this conflict, but do you have a sense of how much Iran’s military capabilities have actually been degraded by this war?
TF: I think that the military operation against the positions of the IRGC [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] was very successful, but of course, they remain to have capabilities. It’s a huge country, and they put all their money into arms, ammunition, and launchers and hiding them in caves, hiding them in bunkers, hiding them in mountains. So, yeah, it’s not easy. They learn from Ukraine. They learn from what’s happened in other countries of the world.
They’re a very old and civilized people, and they’re very smart and highly educated.
FP: So it’s hard to say how much they still may or may not have?
TF: I know, but it’s not my assessment. I know the numbers, but it’s not for me to tell you that.
FP: Moving on to the conflict that Europe is far more invested in—how do you see the war in Iran impacting negotiations to end the war between Russia and Ukraine?
TF: The Ukrainians are a very proud people, and they’re doing a great job. They deserve not one statue; they deserve thousands of statues. And they don’t care about what’s happening in the Middle East. They’re just doing their thing, and I think that they’re really pushing Russia back.
FP: Much of the burden for enabling Ukraine to sustain the fight has now fallen onto Europe from the United States, with things such as the PURL [Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List] mechanism, where Europe is paying for weapons. How well is that process working, and are there any challenges to getting Ukraine the weapons it needs?
TF: It’s working quite well. I read a lot of articles about this, but when I check with my armed forces, they say that everything is working well, so I have no other information for the moment.
FP: Is there anything particular that would be on your wishlist for Ukraine? TF: It will be very important, the production of PAC-2 and PAC-3 missiles in Germany, that they come now as soon as possible. So I think that the solution is co-production in Europe for PURL [of] Patriots, AMRAAM, PAC-2, PAC-3, and then the smaller-caliber weapons. That’s what they need against the ballistic missiles [fired by Russia]. The smaller interceptors we can produce in Europe, but PAC-3 Patriots, that’s American.
That will be co-produced in Germany now, and we need to have more co-production in Europe to help Ukraine.
FP: What is the capacity and willingness right now from the United States to co-produce weapons with Europe?
TF: The willingness is really high. That’s very positive. It’s also a sign of Atlanticism, a sign that they want to keep on being engaged with Europe, right? It’s a positive signal, you know what I mean?
FP: Finally, back on NATO—we’re seeing Trump and his administration continue to denigrate the alliance and make various threats against members. And we have two and a half more years of this. Even if he doesn’t pull the United States out altogether, how much more strain can the alliance take?
TF: But we have a marriage of 80 years. That’s really long. So, to break up after 80 years, who’s doing that? Sometimes you have problems—that’s just how life goes. Of course, there are also fundamental issues on both sides, and so we keep on having the dialogue.
But then again, in the [U.S.] defense budget that has been introduced for 2027, there has been an increase of the budget for NATO programs. So, what’s the problem?
