Search
Close this search box.

Donald Trump

In light of the dramatic announcement by US President Donald Trump that the US will withdraw from the nuclear agreement with Iran (the JCPOA) and restore harsh economic sanctions, it is worthwhile to analyze the Trump administrationโ€™s national security doctrine. The mainstream mediaโ€™s claims that Trump has no real strategy, that he does not understand the issues at stake and changes his mind about them constantly, and that the White House is in a state of confused turmoil do not stand up to scrutiny.
US President Donald Trump is expected to meet Kim Jong-un within two months. The Trump administration has little time to prepare, and it is unclear which Korean experts will be involved. It is also impossible to predict how Trumpโ€™s negotiating style will be received. Pyongyang will not give up all its nuclear weapons immediately. Kim will likely propose a phased negotiation and a step-by-step denuclearization on condition that the regimeโ€™s safety is guaranteed and the US-South Korean alliance is denuclearized beforehand.
Should President Trump meet Kim Jong-un as planned, there are three key but achievable objectives that President Trumpโ€™s team should emphasize. These objectives fall short of complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but North Korea will never surrender its nuclear weapons or its ballistic missiles โ€“ not even if failure to do so leads to the starvation of much of its populace. Nevertheless, the objectives outlined here are both important and attainable.
Emmanuel Macron, Franceโ€™s charismatic new leader, has adopted a proactive approach towards Iran that combines a moderate attitude with Sarkozyโ€™s hard line. On the one hand, he supports the strict preservation of the 2015 nuclear agreement and opposes Trumpโ€™s โ€fix or annulโ€ view of the deal. He also supports tightened bilateral relations with Tehran. On the other hand, he has adopted a hard line, demanding the establishment of an international mechanism of inspection and sanctions on the Iranian ballistic missile program as well as a restriction on its destabilizing involvement in the region. Macron's demands have started a war of words between Paris and Tehran that has the potential to escalate. ย 
Until now, two approaches have dominated American foreign aid: the strategic and the humanitarian. Trump has added a third: the "business approach." The strategic is based on interests, the humanitarian on compassion, and the business on yield. The great powers use the strategic approach and the Europeans the humanitarian. The business approach now guides US aid to the Palestinians. Trump has threatened to cut off US aid to the Palestinians if they refuse to negotiate with Israel, and cut US allocations to UNRWA. This new approach influences the attitudes of Egypt and Jordan, both large recipients of American aid. This can be seen in their low-key responses to Trump's Jerusalem decision. It can also have ramifications for Israel's relations with the Palestinians and the US.
Though the recently released US National Security Strategy (NSS) is not intended to present a concrete and detailed set of American policies for the Middle East, it does reflect the general logic and goals of the Trump administration for the region โ€“ and indicates a convergence of US and Israeli views on the Middle East. Its substance and implications warrant close attention in Jerusalem.
While Israel has always been determinedly self-reliant on core matters of national security, this posture needs to become even more explicit in the disjointed "Trump Era." In correctly acknowledging the unpredictability and possible incoherence of Trump's developing policies towards the Middle East, Jerusalem will need to direct special attention towards growing prospects for "Cold War II," and certain incrementally needed revisions of Israeli nuclear strategy.

Accessibility Toolbar