Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran.
Trump's rebuke of MAGA isolationists is smart foreign policy. We must stop Iran. | Opinion Trump's approach to the Middle East has been very competent. He has stood by Israel, continued to position the United States against Iran, and has not taken American military action off the table.
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Trump teases possible strike on Iran but says it's not too late for deal
"I may do it. I may not do it." President Trump teased a possible strike on Iran but also said it is not too late to negotiate.
President Trump rebuked Tucker Carlson's isolationist stance on the Middle East.
Trump remains firm on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Trump's actions have distanced him from isolationist figures like Carlson and Gabbard.
President Donald Trump on June 16 called out fired Fox News host Tucker Carlson by his new nickname, 'kooky Tucker Carlson,' who has called Trump "complicit" in Israel's strikes against Iran.
Trump also emphasized that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.'
Carlson represents a faction on the right that is against American involvement in the Middle East, regardless of our interests. Despite his rhetorical embrace of these voices during his third presidential campaign, Trump's approach to the Middle East has been very competent. He has stood by Israel, continued to position the United States against Iran and has not taken American military action off the table.
One of my chief concerns about a second Trump presidency was that he was embracing voices like Carlson and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard. But Trump's latest rebuke of the isolationist right is a welcome turn of events, and it improves my view of him as president.
Opinion: Israel's successful attack on Iran is proof American support is worth the money
Trump's stances on Iran have been commendable
Trump has been unwavering in his stance that Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon, and he has held the line against any compromise that allows them to enrich uranium.
While he initially pushed for a diplomatic resolution, it is clear that Iranian leaders will not willingly sign a deal that prevents their continued enrichment programs.
Whether Trump signed off on the Israeli strikes or not remains up for debate, but Trump has had no problem taking credit regardless and has said it's almost too late for negotiation.
Opinion: Trump must back Israel against Iran. 'Kooky' Carlson is wrong about nuclear threat.
Trump's approach to Israel in his second term has been nothing short of stellar, and the fact that he has been consistent on this issue is rather remarkable considering how he has changed his mind in so many other areas.
Trump's willingness to keep all options on the table in the Middle East marks a parting of ways from the isolationists who helped to shape his reelection campaign.
MAGA isolationists got played by Trump's 'America First' approach
The isolationist right thought they had a hero in Trump, but they really just fell for a campaign strategy. Isolationists thought they could mold Trump into their dream candidate, one who lets the happenings of the world go on without American intervention, regardless of our interests in the matter.
They were wrong.
Many chalked up Trump's first term peace-through-strength foreign policy to the establishment Republicans advising him, and thought that his America First movement could be co-opted to meet their isolationist dream. It turns out that Trump still understands the value of America's influence abroad, at least in some regards.
Carlson has been one of the chief skeptics of America's relationship with Israel on the right, often even dipping into the very antisemitic tactics that he used to denounce.
Trump has been asked about Carlson plenty in recent days, and the president has been dismissive of his viewpoints.
Another such figure is Gabbard, whose appointment to be the director of national intelligence rightfully worried conservatives. Gabbard recently has been warning that we are 'closer to the brink of nuclear annihilation than ever before' (which is ridiculous on its face), and suggesting that pro-interventionists are apparently fine with this because "they will have access to nuclear shelters for themselves and for their families.'
This type of fearmongering represents nothing more than an effort to influence the Trump administration back into her camp.
Trump also rejected some of Gabbard's assessments of the Iran situation, telling reporters that 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having" an Iranian nuke. He continues to put American interests above the views of these fringe isolationist voices, and I am pleasantly surprised that he is.
The isolationists do not have a true foreign policy ally in Trump. His second term has been reassuring to conservatives who feared the worst.
Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
17 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: U.S. to Examine Social Media Posts of Student Visa Applicants
A Norwegian naval commando hoisted himself onto the deck of a ship during a NATO exercise in March. Beyond projecting military strength and pledging unity, a more pressing theme has emerged for next week's NATO summit: Keep President Trump happy. As leaders prepare to meet for the annual forum starting on Tuesday, U.S. allies have watered down their public support for Ukrainian membership and drafted a policy communiqué as short as five paragraphs to keep the American leader on board. The meeting itself, in The Hague, will open and close in under two days — a timeline designed to keep it devoid of drama. 'No one wants to say no to Trump,' said Mujtaba Rahman, who analyzes Europe for the Eurasia Group. Asked on Wednesday whether the Iran-Israel war would prompt him to skip the meeting, Mr. Trump told reporters that he still planned to attend. In any case, his influence is certain to loom over the gathering. It has already driven an effort by NATO's secretary general, Mark Rutte, to increase military spending by each of the alliance's 32 members to meet a figure suggested by Mr. Trump. He has demanded it be raised to 5 percent of each country's gross domestic product, up from the current level of 2 percent. Mr. Rutte has proposed widening the definition of military spending to help meet that objective. The new benchmark would include 3.5 percent of G.D.P. on core defense spending — weapons, capabilities, troops — and the rest on what NATO calls 'defense and security-related investment, including in infrastructure and resilience.' In the weeks since Mr. Rutte's idea gained steam, its details, and shortcomings, have become clearer, according to officials and experts. The timeline to increase spending may be different for everyone, and officials are confused about the requirements. Even if countries do allocate the sums, European and even American defense industries may not be able to absorb the money or deliver in a timely fashion. And while NATO countries generally agree it is past time to spend more on security in Europe, where officials believe a militarized Russia might be tempted to test the alliance within years, some nations already struggle to reach the existing target on military spending. They are unlikely to meet Mr. Trump's demand soon, if ever. The discussion about Mr. Rutte's proposal, experts said, has devolved into a debate over spending billions of dollars to fund an ever-widening range of priorities. 'It is largely a shell game,' said Jeremy Shapiro, a former State Department official and now research director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. 'There is some reality there, because defense spending is increasing across Europe, but more because of Vladimir Putin than Donald Trump.' Image President Trump, at the White House on Wednesday, has demanded an increase in military spending by NATO's members. Credit... Doug Mills/The New York Times A NATO Numbers Game Mr. Trump first demanded the 5 percent figure two weeks before his inauguration, although his ambassador to NATO, Matthew G. Whitaker, insisted recently that the United States was not 'driving the timeline' for allies to spend more on defense. 'The threats are driving the timeline,' he said. 'Europe keeps telling us that Russia is their biggest threat and we agree, in the Euro-Atlantic it is. And so we need to make sure everybody's investing.' Initially, Mr. Trump's ambitions seemed both abstract and implausible: Only 23 NATO members were meeting their spending goals by the end of last year. But Mr. Rutte's proposal allows for some spending on what NATO calls 'military-adjacent' projects. In practical terms, that could include investments in advanced technology; rebuilding roads, bridges and other infrastructure; civic defense; education; improved health services; and aid to Ukraine. In effect, the Trump benchmark 'is both real and not real,' said Nathalie Tocci, director of Italy's Institute of International Affairs. 'The real thing is 3.5 percent, which has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with NATO's getting what it judges it needs,' she said. 'The unreal part is the 1.5 percent, the P.R. move for Trump,' she said. 'Of course infrastructure is important, and diplomacy and education, so lump it all together for Trump. And if the magic figure of 5 percent ensures benign indifference rather than malign hostility, that's all to the good.' Image Ukrainian soldiers last month in the Donetsk region. Credit... Tyler Hicks/The New York Times Counting Aid to Ukraine The proposal may have helped Mr. Rutte balance the president's desires with those of European leaders, but it has also created complications. Defense ministers meeting at NATO headquarters in Brussels this month appeared confused over how the money should be spent, and how soon, and over whether aid to Ukraine could count. 'We have to find a realistic compromise between what is necessary and what is possible, really, to spend,' said Germany's defense minister, Boris Pistorius. Luxembourg's defense minister, Yuriko Backes, was more blunt. 'It will be the capabilities that will keep us safe, not percentages,' she said. 'This is what should be driving our investments, not the other way around.' Luxembourg will reach the current spending threshold — which was set in 2014 to be accomplished in a decade — only this year. And not until recently was it clear — even among some NATO defense ministers — that countries could include a small fraction of their military contributions to the war in Ukraine as part of their defense spending. But the rules for what qualifies are complex and decided at NATO headquarters on a case-by-case basis, to ensure that countries don't double-count what they give to Ukraine as a part of domestic military investment. 'Supporting Ukraine is really an investment into our own security,' said Sweden's defense minister, Pal Jonson. Allies are debating how to count the aid to Ukraine. The current plan is to consider it core military spending. But some of the countries nearest to Russia's borders do not want to dilute their domestic defense and want aid to Ukraine categorized as 'related investments.' Image Mark Rutte, the NATO secretary general, during a visit to the White House in April. Mr. Rutte is the architect of a plan that would allow for some spending on what the alliance calls 'military-adjacent' projects. Credit... Haiyun Jiang for The New York Times A Matter of Time There is also uncertainty about when allies would be expected to meet the higher spending threshold. Mr. Rutte initially proposed 2032, but countries on NATO's eastern flank want it to happen sooner. NATO intelligence suggests that, without a credible military deterrent, Russia could mount an effective offensive against the alliance in five years after the Ukraine war ends. 'We don't have time even for seven years,' Defense Minister Hanno Pevkur of Estonia said recently. 'We have to show that we have everything we need to defend our countries.' Britain, for example, has committed to spending only 3 percent by 2034, long after Mr. Trump is scheduled to leave office. Canada, Italy, Luxembourg and Spain will reach 2 percent, a decade-old goal, only this year. And the United States itself currently spends about 3.4 percent of its G.D.P. on defense, even though in sheer dollars it accounts for nearly half of NATO spending. The amount that Washington spends just on Europe is a much smaller percentage of the Pentagon's $997 billion budget. Like Mr. Rutte, other world leaders have sought ways to get the most out of their dealings with Mr. Trump and avoid unpredictable problems. At this week's Group of 7 summit, the newly elected prime minister of Canada and host of the event, Mark Carney, deployed a mix of flattery and discipline. Yet the president still disrupted the gathering, departing early to address the Iran-Israel war. Mr. Rutte hopes to avoid such an outcome. 'Trump is making a fake demand for more spending, and they're giving him a fake response,' Mr. Shapiro said. He called the Rutte plan 'clever, because it lets Trump get what he wants and he can brag about it.'
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump downplays signs of MAGA unrest over possible military strike on Iran
President Donald Trump appears to be downplaying talk that some of his long-loyal MAGA supporters are breaking with him over the possibility that the president will order a military strike on Iran. This amid the nearly week-long daily trading of fire between the Islamic State and Israel, America's top ally in the Middle East. "My supporters are more in love with me today, and I'm more in love with them, more than they even were at election time," the president said when asked about a GOP rift between some of his most vocal supporters of his America First agenda, and more traditional national security conservatives. The president, speaking to reporters on Wednesday on the South Lawn of the White House, added: "I may have some people that are a little bit unhappy now, but I have some people that are very happy, and I have people outside of the base that can't believe that this is happening. They're so happy." Click Here For Fox News Live Updates On The Israel-iran Attacks Asked if he would order an attack on Iran to prevent Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons, the president said, "I may do it, I may not do it. I mean, nobody knows what I'm going to do. I can tell you this, that Iran's got a lot of trouble." Read On The Fox News App The prospect of Trump jumping into the incredibly volatile situation in the Middle East is causing plenty of consternation among some of his top political and ideological allies, and creating divisions within MAGA - a rare moment for a movement that's been firmly supportive of Trump since his 2016 White House campaign. Trump Says Iran's 'Got A Lot Of Trouble' Some top MAGA voices over the past week have argued against any kind of U.S. military involvement with Israel against Iran, arguing it would contradict Trump's America First policy to keep the nation out of foreign wars. And they say it would repeat the move more than two decades ago by then-President George W. Bush to attack Iraq, which Trump had long criticized on the campaign trail. Among those speaking out have been conservative commentator Tucker Carlson and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a top Trump House ally. Also voicing concerns while remaining firmly supportive of the president are Charlie Kirk — the conservative host and MAGA-world figurehead who leads the influential Turning Point USA — and Steve Bannon, a prominent MAGA ally and former top adviser to Trump's 2016 campaign. But there's been plenty of support for Trump, and for attacking Iran, by other top MAGA world voices. Vance Defends Trump's Iran Position Amid 'Crazy Stuff On Social Media' Also defending Trump this week was Vice President JD Vance, who is a top voice in the America First, isolationist wing of the party. Vance, speaking to both sides, highlighted Tuesday in a social media post that "people are right to be worried about foreign entanglement after the last 25 years of idiotic foreign policy." But Vance stressed that Trump "has earned some trust on this issue." And the vice president added that "having seen this up close and personal, I can assure you that he is only interested in using American military to accomplish the American people's goals. Whatever he does, that is his focus." Trump, speaking with reporters on Wednesday afternoon, said: "I don't want to get involved either, but I've been saying for 20 years, maybe longer, that Iran can not have a nuclear weapon." Uss Nimitz Carrier Strike Group Sailing Toward Middle East Ahead Of Schedule, Us Official Says "My supporters are for me. My supporters are America First and Make America Great Again. My supporters don't want to see Iran have a nuclear weapon," the president added. The current debate within the Republican Party wouldn't have happened before Trump shook up and remade the GOP over the past decade. Wayne Lesperance, a veteran political scientist and the president of New England College, highlighted that "the divide in the GOP can be traced to Trump's promises to pull America back from its entanglements in the world." And Matthew Bartlett, a Republican strategist who served at the State Department during Trump's first term, noted that "Donald Trump changed the direction of the Republican Party" when it comes to American military engagements around the world. "That gave him a new coalition and new political power. This new war in the Middle East is certainly threatening that coalition. While we are not yet involved in a war, chances of escalation are dramatically increased and that certainly has ramifications with the MAGA coalition," Bartlett article source: Trump downplays signs of MAGA unrest over possible military strike on Iran
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Dow Jones Futures Fall As Trump Mulls Iran Attack; U.S. Markets Shut
Dow Jones futures: U.S. stock markets are closed Thursday as President Trump mulls an Iran attack. Fed chief Jerome Powell is in no rush.
