Former President Donald Trump is facing a very different foreign policy landscape as he aims for his second term. In addition, his cabinet does not appear as hawkish as it formerly was during his first administration. Most observers are under the impression that the pro-aggression option has won out in Trump’s administration over the “MAGA antiwar” mood. Yet his impulsive and erratic approach to policy has us wondering over what it could mean for rising tensions in the Middle East, particularly between Iran and Israel.
In a White House interview earlier this week with ABC news, Trump reiterated he would use military force as necessary. It’s very real that we might get drawn into something. His words came in response to threats against U.S. forces in the region. This statement contrasts with his previous cautious moves, including a last-minute decision to withdraw from a planned strike on Iran in 2019. This blend of assertiveness and restraint exemplifies the challenges facing Trump as he balances competing influences within his administration and the broader political landscape.
The Influence of Trump’s Advisors
As we’ve seen with every iteration of Trump’s national security team, they have a proclivity for hawkish military escapades. In 2019, they offered an “apparently unanimous recommendation” to hit Iran. Trump’s decision to drop that plan may be the best evidence of just how willing he is to go against conventional wisdom. This inclination is especially clear when he faces momentous decisions. This characterizes his ambitious and sweeping approach to policy-making. He regularly consults a very broad array of sources, not limited by the small circle of his immediate advisors.
To make these weighty calls, Trump frequently consults with mavericks outside the West Wing. He rolls out the red carpet to right-wing, anti-democratic media arms like Fox News, far-right propagandists, social media disinformation peddlers, and other influential political donors. This fascinating hodgepodge of influences often results in a rich variety of policy directives. These directives are subject to rapid alteration due to outside political pressure. When Trump has numbers on his side, he makes strategic use of unexpected voices. By focusing on public mood and political will, this strategy avoids the trap of adherence to a rigid doctrine.
Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East, is another of his advisors. He just called for re-establishing diplomatic relations with Tehran. This recommendation constitutes a radical break from the blustery tactics advocated by previous advisors such as John Bolton, Robert O’Brien and Mike Pompeo. It ushers in an era of better, more diplomatic engagement. Witkoff is on board with Trump’s favoring of diplomatic solutions. He instinctively and constantly encourages the world to seek peace and resolution through negotiation instead of war.
A Shift in Policy Direction
We have heard from experts this week about that notable change in Trump’s strategy between his first term and today’s politics. According to analyst Finucane, this new direction reflects a broader tendency towards an “America First” ideology within Trump’s inner circle. If sustained, this evolution might help Trump go beyond containing the long-standing Israel-Iran rivalry. Recent Israeli strikes on Iranian targets further complicate the picture.
While Trump’s administration has taken a relatively hands-off approach regarding Israel’s military actions, he has signaled that he prefers diplomatic avenues for resolving tensions. Public statements might lead us to believe otherwise. As with any political move, looking at how it is perceived publicly can help illuminate his true intentions. He hopes for a better outcome at the bargaining table. By sharp contrast, many of his past colleagues take on a harder line.
JD Vance, a key player in Trump’s new administration. He’s maintained that the U.S. should show restraint in its support for Israel and not carry out military action against Iran. This perspective could potentially reshape U.S. foreign policy in the region by advocating for reduced militarization and increased diplomatic engagement. Vance’s arguments align with parts of Trump’s base that are already suspicious of military action abroad.
The Complex Landscape Ahead
While Trump continues to prepare for direct confrontation with Iran, he is walking the tightrope of Israel’s place in security dynamics of a changing region, while trying to balance conflicting perspectives within his own administration. Yet some advisors are reportedly pressing for a full-throated return to hawkish policies like those of his first term. At the same time, others call for a quieter, more measured approach focused on diplomacy and negotiation.
The next few months will be very telling. From these competing influences he will have to craft policy responses to the scene of rising tensions in the Middle East. His recent lunch with Mark Levin, who has previously endorsed military action against Iran, highlights the continued presence of hardline perspectives in his circle. Yet, Trump’s inclination to consult diverse voices may ultimately lead him towards a more nuanced strategy that balances military readiness with diplomatic overtures.
