The defining trait of Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy and his entire political world view is highlighted by his aggressive and artless comments on Hamas’ terror in Israel. This is a one-man show.
Trump attacked Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called Hezbollah members “very smart,” and tried to profit politically from the 1,200 deaths caused by the bombings by saying he would be president if the last election hadn’t been “rigged.”
In an outspoken criticism of Netanyahu, the ex-president said that in 2020, when the United States launched an air strike in Iraq to kill the head of the Iranian intelligence service, Qasem Soleimani, Netanyahu backed out at the last minute. Trump’s anger at the Israeli leader’s concession of defeat in the election had been well-documented.
Although there were numerous examples of his tone deafness and indiscretion while in office, now that Trump is a private individual, it’s probable he wouldn’t have treated the matter in the same way if he were president. His words are dissected for indications about how he would act as president in 2024, though, because he is the Republican frontrunner. A second term for Trump would be considerably more chaotic at home and globally damaging than his first four years in office, as seen by his latest pronouncements.
GOP opponents seized on the former president’s comments to accuse him of unfit conduct for a possible commander in chief after an ally was attacked amid horrific scenes of devastation in which some Americans were also killed. His apparent support for the anti-Israeli Lebanese militia Hezbollah was criticised by several.
“He is an idiot. Former New Jersey governor Chris Christie, whose campaign is built on attacking Trump’s fitness for office, told AWN that “only a fool would make those kinds of comments.”
“Only a fool would give comments that could give aid and comfort to Israel’s adversary in this situation,” Christie went on to say. The person he sees in the mirror every morning is the only person he cares about more than anyone else in the world, not the United States or Israel.
On Thursday night, the former president issued a statement to quell the gathering uproar, in which he claimed that “there was no better friend or ally of Israel than me.” President Joe Biden was the target of his accusations of weakness and incompetence. Israel and the world would be safe again with President Trump in power, he declared. Former President Carter praised the “skill and determination” of the Israel Defence Forces as he continued cleanup efforts on Friday morning.
Trump’s transactional, unorthodox approach to foreign policy, in which his own personal ambitions are often prioritised over a normal conception of the national interest, is reflected in his original grievance-based analysis. It also drew attention to the differences between him and his possible opponent in the 2024 race. Biden responded to the attack with rhetoric, personal behind-the-scenes meetings with major foreign leaders, and the mobilisation of allies—in other words, the full arsenal of classic statesmanship. Biden, like Trump, had a personal and political battle with Netanyahu but had put aside his differences with the prime minister weeks before the incident and has been in continuous communication with him ever since.
Biden is attempting a middle ground. After the most stunning invasion of Israel’s borders and national psyche in 50 years, he has exhibited the most fervent support for Israel of any recent US president and acknowledged Israel’s need to react and regain its sense of security. At the same time, Biden is trying to keep the conflict from becoming a dangerous regional conflict that could draw in the United States by privately and publicly signalling to Netanyahu that Israel’s response should not violate the laws of war and that he should consider the humanitarian consequences of an invasion of Gaza.
Critics of Biden’s foreign policies have a right to question whether or not the Obama administration ignored the threat posed by Hamas because of its hands-off approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. His detractors further claim that his attempts to engage in talks with Iran, a major financial backer of the terrorist organisation, only served to bolster the Islamic Republic and endanger Israel. If the election in 2024 is a replay of 2020, Biden’s campaign will boil down to this question for voters: “How does Biden’s temperament and approach compare to Trump’s?” Is Trump qualified to serve as president?
Isolating Netanyahu, Trump
On Wednesday, Trump remarked on Fox News that the strikes had “hurt very badly” Netanyahu. “He was not prepared, and Israel was not prepared,” the ex-president stated. It’s possible he’s right, and after the conflict, Israel will look into its intelligence and political failings. One of America’s closest allies, Israel, is reeling from the aftermath of a horrific attack on people and could use support, not political point scoring and second guessing. Trump’s willingness to publicly criticise Netanyahu despite the Israeli leader’s best efforts to align himself politically with the former president demonstrates the one-way nature of his allegiance and the risk they face if they cross him.
Trump’s statements weren’t the first time he’s seemed to use foreign policy, and his stances on Israel in particular, for electoral gain. He felt American Jews were not appreciative enough of his presidency and its accomplishments, including as relocating the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and he voiced his displeasure with them last October.
Trump stated on Truth Social, “No President has done more for Israel than I have,” and he went on to say that it was somewhat surprising that “our wonderful Evangelicals are far more appreciative of this than the people of the Jewish faith, especially those living in the U.S.” Antisemitic tropes were allegedly utilised by him to demand the devotion of American Jews. The White House claimed he made anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli remarks.
Trump’s comments on Hezbollah on Wednesday, which could cause much more destruction in Israel, also seemed improper. They are cunning and vicious. “Boy, are they vicious, because nobody’s ever seen the kind of sight that we’ve seen,” Trump remarked at a political rally in Florida. His words were typical of his tendency to extol the praises of foreign enemies he considers formidable, even if they rule with an iron grip, violate basic humanitarian norms, and oppose the United States. He hasn’t been shy about his respect for dictators like Xi Jinping of China and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. He has a history of admiring Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, who is accused of war crimes due to atrocities perpetrated during the conflict in Ukraine. Most recently, he called Putin “a genius.”
Trump frequently gave the appearance of being willing to sacrifice national interests for political gain. For instance, he agreed with Putin during the Helsinki summit when Putin denied Russian meddling in the 2016 election was aimed at helping Trump.
The former president continues to show disdain for allies and the international security architecture that has supported American power since the end of World War II, while advocating a return to his “America First” nationalist foreign policy. It is perfectly acceptable for him to offer these beliefs to voters and try to garner support for his vision, despite the fact that they would mark a radical departure from current US foreign policy.
However, his most recent remarks will simply strengthen the sense that his own objectives are most important, an impression that is regularly left by his acts as president. They also illustrate Trump’s classic disregard for political norms, international law, and even common decency, which helps to understand why he terrifies so many Americans and nations across the world. For Republicans on the ground, however, who despise the norms of the party establishment, this behaviour is essential to his credibility.
Trump’s comments on Soleimani could have been in poor taste.
During his speech in Florida, Trump lashed out at Israel for sitting out the raid that killed Soleimani. Never will I forget the day Bibi Netanyahu betrayed us. I’ll admit, he replied, “it was a dreadful thing indeed. It was initially unclear whether Trump had violated a confidence with an ally or divulged sensitive information, or whether Israel had considered an operational role in the raid.
However, the former president has a history of spilling the beans about top-secret matters. After leaving office, he allegedly hid confidential materials at his Mar-a-Lago property and mishandled some of them, leading to an indictment on national security charges. The Australian millionaire was reportedly on the receiving end of Trump’s revelations concerning the US submarine service and nuclear weapons, which ABC News reported on last week. Trump insists he did nothing wrong.
Republican opponents of the former president jumped on his criticism of Netanyahu in an attempt to expose his political vulnerabilities.
Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida said that Trump had thrown “verbal grenades” at Israel. “Now is not the time to be doing, like, what Donald Trump did by attacking Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, attacking Israel’s defence minister, saying somehow that Hezbollah were’very smart,'” DeSantis said in New Hampshire. This is not the time to air your issues with the Israeli prime minister, so please refrain from doing so. Even though he was a part of the administration that frequently questioned American ideals, former Vice President Mike Pence has criticised Trump’s foreign policies. Pence also asserted that Trump had changed for the better during his time away from government, a dubious claim that comes out as self-serving because it appears to have been made in order to establish credible distance from Trump’s excesses while in office.
Pence remarked on a New Hampshire radio station, “He’s simply not expressing, and his imitators in his primary, are not expressing the same muscular American foreign policy that we lived out every day.”
If Trump is reelected in 2024, the world will once again be rocked by his unconventional approach to foreign policy, which is based on his own prejudices, grievances, and pursuit of political advantage.