Donald Trump has made it clear once more that he intends to be a “peacemaker and unifier.” As he prepares for what could be a successful second term in office. In a speech last month, he doubled down on his plan to “end all wars” on day one of his inauguration next January. Especially since tensions between Israel and Iran are at a boiling point now. What does this reality mean for the direction of Trump’s foreign policy, and what does it mean for America?
Most recently, Trump tried to do the same to his Democratic opponent, Kamala Harris. For that connection, he slammed her—for her friendship with Dick Cheney and his daughter, Liz Cheney. He painted them as “war hawks,” implying that their perspective on military intervention is opposed to his dream of peace. Trump’s rhetoric reflects a broader strategy to engage voters who are weary of prolonged military conflicts, particularly those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Reactions to Trump’s comments have ranged from anger and confusion. Conservatives, especially, are wringing their hands over the blowback which the conduct of his foreign policy will surely incur. Through all of this he is trying to project an image of restraint and diplomacy. The hard truths of international relations pose daunting obstacles to his fairytale.
Criticism of Political Opponents
Speaking at a rally in Novi, Michigan, Trump brought down the most critical fire on Dick Cheney. He blamed Cheney for the invasion of the Middle East and killing millions. This direct attack is intended to put Trump in opposition to the more establishment wing of the party which has historically supported military interventions. By framing Cheney as a symbol of a failed foreign policy, Trump aims to differentiate himself from the establishment and appeal to voters who prioritize a non-interventionist approach.
The ex-prez has focused Harris for her ties to Cheney. Her association with this literal war-mongers damages her credibility, he argues, especially given her proclivities for military involvement. This tactic is part of Trump’s broader campaign strategy as he seeks to consolidate support from a base that increasingly values isolationist principles.
Trump’s claims against his opponents reveal the chasm in the Republican Party over foreign policy. His populist appeal goes right to the heart of this deep disillusionment that millions of Americans have about our endless wars. This feeling has only sharpened since his first presidential run.
Diplomatic Commitments Amid Rising Tensions
With tensions between Israel and Iran reaching new levels, Trump has not softened his rhetoric against Iran’s nuclear program. On the campaign trail, he announced on Twitter that Iran should never get a bomb. He underscored his administration’s commitment to preventing Tehran from acquiring those capabilities. He intimidates Iranian leaders into striking an agreement for the destruction of their nuclear program. He contends that their inability to come to an agreement makes all parties more angry and hostile.
On Thursday, during a news conference, Trump expressed optimism that the U.S. could help foster successful outcomes in the region, despite acknowledging the potential for conflict. He cautioned that there is a “tremendous risk” of the U.S. being drawn into another war. This threat is particularly acute given the context of Israel’s recent military campaign against Iran.
Even Trump’s intelligence chief, Tulsi Gabbard, just testified that all U.S. assessments agree — Iran is not actively trying to get a nuke. These warnings come hot on the heels of her remarks. This is a direct rebuke to Trump’s push to be more militaristic with Russia and it opens up significant questions about the coherence of U.S. policy going forward.
Balancing Support for Israel and American Interests
In an ongoing international diplomatic tangle, as a candidate, he promised to always have Israel’s back. He has recently realized that this unconditional support could be at odds with his “America First” platform. This comment goes to the core of the Republican Party’s existential conflict. They are wrestling with the pas de deux of prioritizing U.S. interests while maintaining support for their historical allies.
It’s a strong warning against the type of wars that do nothing to advance American interests. He urges for vigorous debate and thought before committing to military action. That is a message that is going to resonate with all those voters who are more suspicious of foreign entanglements than they’ve ever been.
Trump’s critics in more establishment conservative circles see the danger in his rhetoric. For one, they worry it would embolden Iran and eventually get the U.S. dragged into war. In response, they make the case that diplomacy is the key. It can never come at the expense of our national security or the safety and security of Israel. Critics worry that Trump’s wild west approach could encourage enemies at a time when the world is more dangerous than ever.
