Latest news with #AmericaAlone
Politico
7 hours ago
- Politics
- Politico
With Iran Strikes, Trump is ‘Unchained'
Remember when Donald Trump was an isolationist? Yes, once upon a time, that's how many in the national security realm described this president. Plenty of his moves — from his digs at NATO to his use of the 'America First' slogan — seemed to justify the label. Officials, journalists and others, including myself, would sit around pondering questions like: 'Does America First mean America Alone?' In the years since he first took office, it has become increasingly hard to define the 'Trump Doctrine' for foreign policy. He has taken more and more contradictory moves while growing more confident in his Oval Office instincts. Foreign affairs luminaries have devoted many papers to trying to clarify the aims of a man who refuses to come into focus. He's a shallow transactionalist! He's a principled realist! He's an imperialist with a Western Hemisphere fixation! Trump himself once even said, 'I'm a nationalist and a globalist. I'm both.' Trump's decision to bomb Iran's nuclear sites this weekend is the latest sign that he's now in a phase where he's willing to take enormous risks with little concern about the blowback. He has survived so much already — two impeachments, criminal convictions, two assassination attempts. He doesn't have to run for office again, and, as has been amply noted, his advisers won't restrain him the way they did in his first term. Even when Trump backs down (the TACO thing) he still redefines the parameters of the conversation. 'It's Trump unchained,' said Ilan Goldenberg, a Middle East specialist who worked for the Biden team, referring to the president's behavior. I've never been a fan of the race to define presidential doctrines. It feels unfair to try to box in leaders who face so many varying crises. But I sympathize with people who seek to impose coherence on Trump because, as humans, we all need some sense of order and clarity. When I asked several former officials and analysts what Trump's strikes on Iran meant about his foreign policy doctrine, their exhaustion at trying to understand the mercurial president came through. 'I have no idea what the doctrine is. Ask him,' an Arab analyst said. 'Seriously?' a Bush II administration official replied. I granted them anonymity to be frank about their uncertainty. Others took a shot. Trump 'stresses diplomacy but leaves little doubt that those diplomatic windows do not stay open indefinitely,' said Bill Cortese, a GOP operative close to the White House. 'The use of force is always on the table but the use of U.S. assets is limited, focused, and with an end goal — no more open-ended conflicts. And it must answer the ultimate question: Does this directly benefit the people of the United States?' Eddie Fishman, a sanctions expert who worked for the Obama administration, put it this way: 'Trump seems to believe that the quick and decisive application of U.S. power — be it economic or military — can achieve maximalist objectives. As Trump sees it, the disparity in power between the U.S. and other countries is so great that when we act boldly, others will capitulate.' Trump's decision to strike Iran will test these theories, as well as his risk tolerance. It also could determine how his 'doctrine' — as much as one can call it that — is ultimately defined. Trump has urged Iran not to retaliate and to use the U.S. strike as an opportunity to negotiate some sort of peace. But Iran has already threatened revenge, and nearly every U.S. official I spoke to expects it will fulfill that promise. On Sunday, there were reports that Iran may shut down the Strait of Hormuz, a move that could spike oil prices and roil markets. The U.S. also has some 40,000 troops stationed across the Middle East, giving Iran many potential targets. If Trump's hope for a one-and-done strike devolves into an endless tit-for-tat, he will have led the U.S. into the very type of war he's long promised to avoid. So much for the 'isolationist.' For countries watching this from the sidelines, there are lessons to learn from how both Trump and Iran approached this conflict, which spiraled after Israel began striking Iranian targets more than a week ago. One is that Trump isn't bluffing about using force, even in an extreme way. While he carried out military strikes during his first term (on Syria, on an Iranian general who was in Iraq) those moves were arguably more calibrated than this weekend's bunker-buster bombing on Iranian soil. A second lesson is that he believes in diplomacy, but he doesn't have much patience for it. That's especially the case when it comes to an adversary he sees as much weaker than the United States. Iranian officials tried to use their usual delaying tactics as they negotiated with Trump's envoys. When Israel decided to strike Iran two days before Iranian and U.S. officials were due to meet, Trump, annoyed with Tehran's unwillingness to commit to zero enrichment of uranium on Iranian soil, didn't try very hard to stop the Israelis. 'They thought they were dealing with a different kind of leader, like the kinds of leaders they've been playing games with for the last 30 or 40 years. And they found out that's not the case,' Secretary of State Marco Rubio told CBS's 'Face the Nation' on Sunday. Another lesson is to be prepared for the worst-case scenario when it comes to Trump. He says he'll decide 'within two weeks' whether to bomb you? It probably means you'll get bombed, like, right now. 'Don't underestimate and dismiss when he says crazy things,' Goldenberg said. 'They might actually happen.' When it comes to Iran, Trump watchers can still revert to the phrase 'America First' in trying to capture his bedrock foreign policy belief. Trump naysayers can argue that he's abandoning 'America First' by entering a war that could lead to the loss of U.S. lives and resources. Trump supporters can say: What's more 'America First' than eliminating the nuclear threat from an avowed U.S. enemy? The great thing about 'America First' is that it is malleable, just like Trump himself.
ITV News
23-04-2025
- Business
- ITV News
Reeves: Tariff-free deal with US still possible and Trump can ‘absolutely' be trusted
Rachel Reeves told ITV News Business and Economics Editor Joel Hills she understood some of the US' concerns and said a trade war is in "no one's interest" The European Union and Canada are not taking tariffs lying down. Both have responded to the trade war that US President Trump initiated by announcing tariffs on imports from the US. The UK strategy has been quieter, more cooperative and peaceable. The 'softly, softly' approach hasn't yet secured the UK better treatment from the Trump administration, but the chancellor seems to believe it is working. 'It's clear the United States do want to secure an economic agreement with the United Kingdom and we want to do likewise,' Rachel Reeves has told ITV News in an interview in Washington, although she wouldn't say how soon a deal could be reached. Trump has set a baseline tax of 10% on imports from all countries, but the chancellor seems to believe that the US can be persuaded to lift all the tariffs that have been imposed on the UK since February. 'Discussions are ongoing, they're going well,' Reeves insisted. The chancellor is scheduled to meet the US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant while she is in Washington for the International Monetary Fund's (IMF) spring meeting. On Wednesday, and not for the first time, Bessant was sounding more amenable and conciliatory than the president. 'America First does not mean America Alone,' he said in a speech at the Institute of International Finance. 'To the contrary, it is a call for deeper collaboration and mutual respect among trade partners." If the government cannot secure a UK carve-out on tariffs, will it retaliate with tariffs of its own? It's not obvious how the UK could do this without pushing up prices for consumers, and the situation is further complicated by the fact that we are currently dependent on the US for military equipment and share intelligence. Speaking to the chancellor, you get the sense that retaliation is plan Z. It's not even a veiled threat. 'I don't think escalation is the right approach. We want to bring down trade barriers, not increase them. A trade war is in no one's interest,' Reeves said. Trade discussions roll on, but there is a sense of urgency. President Trump's tariffs and the blizzard of uncertainty he has whipped up have weakened our growth prospects, pushing up the cost of borrowing and increasing the strain on the government's finances. Annual borrowing in the year to the end of March came in £15 billion higher than the government's forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, forecasted just a month ago. Meanwhile, activity by companies in the private sector fell at its fastest pace for more than two years in April, according to a business survey by stock market index S&P. Unless something changes, there is a risk the chancellor will be forced to increase taxes or cut spending again, later in the year. 'The fiscal rules [on debt and borrowing] are non-negotiable,' insisted Rachel Reeves on Wednesday morning. And she insists the tax pledges Labour made in its election manifesto - not to raise income tax, VAT or national insurance for working people - are sacrosanct too, whatever happens next. 'I understand the anxiety that many families still feel about the cost of living. And as a government, we will do nothing to exacerbate those concerns,' she told ITV News. This commitment also limits the UK's ability to retaliate with tariffs of its own. It's hard to see how taxes can be imposed on US imports in any meaningful way without raising prices for UK households. Even if the UK does secure an agreement with President Trump, is it confident he'll stick to it? After all, Canada had a trade deal with the United States, one that Trump agreed to and signed in his first term as president, and look what happened there. President Trump can 'absolutely' be trusted not to renege on a trade deal, the chancellor insisted. She added: 'There's a good relationship between the President of the United States, Donald Trump and our Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. "We saw that when the prime minister visited the White House recently, and also in the continued dialogue between our two leaders.' There is an increasing sense that Trump's attempt to rewrite the global trade rules - and the aggressive way in which he going about it - is starting to bump up against constraints. Trump slaps a 145% tariff on imports from China and then concedes they are unsustainable. He threatens to sack the chair of the Federal Reserve, the central bank of the United States, for not cutting interest rates and then, days later, insists his job is safe. A trend is emerging: when investors sell the dollar, when they sell US government debt and shares in US companies, the president always backs down. Trump is powerful, but the markets hold sway.
Yahoo
30-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Key details of Trump's tariffs remain uncertain days ahead of April 2
The Trump administration is preparing to roll out a slew of new tariffs on Washington's trading partners on April 2. But with just days to go until the new duties are supposed to take effect, key details, as well as what the tariffs are supposed to achieve, remain unclear to analysts, foreign governments, and lawmakers alike, while administration officials have also made several contradictory claims. The result is a growing feeling of uncertainty over the trajectory of the American economy. 'I can't give you any forward-looking guidance on what's gonna happen this week,' White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said Sunday. 'The president has got a heck of a lot of analysis before him, and he's gonna make the right choice I'm sure.' Donald Trump has long touted tariffs as a way to push companies to invest more in the US and promote American businesses. He has also positioned them as a revenue source for the government, while some conservative lawmakers see them as a means to force other countries to grant concessions. 'Trump, for now at least, appears to be trying to demonstrate that tariffs can accomplish several goals simultaneously,' The Washington Post wrote. An economist with a center-right think tank, though, noted that 'several of these stated goals are in contradiction with each other… You can't have a tariff for everything and everyone — in time, they will have to reveal what the real purpose is.' The questions swirling around the tariffs — from what goods they will affect to how governments and companies respond, to how prices will change — has permeated the economic ecosystem. Markets are bracing for volatility after April 2 while analysts have warned of high-level impacts: 'The uncertainty alone is going to drag on growth,' a Deutsche Bank economist said. In some communities where agriculture is the dominant industry, tariffs are the dominant topic of discussion, Minnesota paper The Mankato Free Press wrote. Fears range from a consumer spending slowdown to diminished exports. 'There is an uneasiness in the farm community because of the uncertainty,' one local farmer said. 'I'm sympathetic to the America First agenda… But I don't want it to become America Alone.' Despite many analysts' fears that Donald Trump's tariffs will prompt the world's markets to put up their own barriers, 'Trump 2.0 will not be a fatal blow to international trade,' the Financial Times' Tej Parikh argued. The US is influential, but it alone can not reverse globalization; Europe and China are larger contributors to global trade growth, and a US retrenchment would only spur other countries to fill the gap, Parikh wrote. Asset manager PGIM defined the current moment as a 'dual-track era,' in which national security-related sectors are deglobalizing — for example, artificial intelligence, chips, minerals, military tech — but the less flashy goods and services sectors, which make up 75% of the global economy, are still globalizing at high speed.
Yahoo
14-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
People Have A Whooole Lot To Say About Pete Hegseth's Blue Suit
The U.S. Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, made his first visit to NATO headquarters in Brussels this week. He wore a blue suit, and he was apparently very, very proud of it. He posted this on X: Some people loved his comment. This person shared some prayer hands, a cross, and an American flag. And this person said, "America First! Front and center as always!" But other people weren't so into it. "How First," this person asked. "America First = America Alone," another person said. And this person said: "We got 'em good! Nothing screams America First like a suit that's a brighter blue than the rest of the darker blue suits. Now THAT'S leadership!" Then, there are the jokes. "One is dressed as if they're about to go live at Fox News," this person said. "Kinda missing the point of NATO," another person said. And this person brought up Obama's tan suit: "Remember when people lost their shit because Obama wore a tan summer suit?" But, alas, there is one problem we can all agree on! As this person pointed out, "Not the brown shoes."
