Latest news with #TrumpForeignPolicy
CNN
07-07-2025
- Politics
- CNN
Three Experts on Trump's Foreign Policy - Fareed Zakaria GPS - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
Three Experts on Trump's Foreign Policy Fareed Zakaria GPS 43 mins Today on the show, in a special edition of GPS from the Aspen Ideas Festival, Fareed speaks with two former national security advisers, John Bolton and Susan Rice, and former CIA Director/US Army retired Gen. David Petraeus about the Trump administration's foreign policy, including the future of Iran's regime and the state of America's global alliances. Next, architect Vishaan Chakrabarti and scholar Marc Dunkelman talk with Fareed about why progressives struggle to build the infrastructure necessary to improve the cities that they run. Then, New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman tells Fareed the three factors he thinks are crucial for understanding the politics of today's Middle East. Finally, Fareed and Walter Isaacson, historian and biographer, discuss the growing wealth inequality across the US and what else —besides wealth — is necessary to build good societies. GUESTS: David Petraeus, John Bolton (@AmbJohnBolton), Susan Rice (@AmbassadorRice), Tom Friedman (@tomfriedman), Vishaan Chakrabarti, Marc Dunkelman (@MarcDunkelman), Walter Isaacson (@WalterIsaacson)
Yahoo
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Iran air strikes: Republicans split over support for Trump and another ‘foreign war'
After returning early from the G7 summit in Canada, Donald Trump met with his national security team to be briefed on the escalating Israel-Iran conflict. It became clear that Trump was considering direct US military support for the Israelis. This has the potential to cause a split among the president's supporters between the Republican hawks (traditional interventionists) on one side and the Maga isolationists on the other. During his three presidential campaigns, Trump condemned former presidents for leading America into 'ridiculous endless wars'. This isolationist tilt won him plaudits with his base of those who supported him for his populist promises to 'make America great again' (Maga). In their work on US attitudes to foreign policy and US overseas involvement, Elaine Kamarck and Jordan Muchnick of the Brookings Institution – a non-profit research organisation in Washington – looked at a range of evidence in 2023. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. They found Republicans supporting less global involvement from the US had increased from 40% to 54% from 2004 to 2017. At that time only 16% of voters supported increasing US troop presence abroad, and 40% wanted a decrease, they found. They related this change in attitudes to Trump's foreign policy position. Fast forward to his second term, and many in the Maga camp are fiercely opposed to Trump's current posturing about leading the US into another conflict in the Middle East. Over the past few days the White House has doubled down on the line that Trump keeps repeating: 'Iran can not have a nuclear weapon'. As Trump edges closer to committing the US to joining Israel in air strikes on Iran, Steve Bannon, a staunch Trump ally, argued that allowing the 'deep state' to drive the US into conflict with Iran would 'blow up' the coalition of Trump support. Meanwhile, Conservative podcaster Tucker Carlson denounced those Republicans supporting action against Iran as 'warmongers' and said they were encouraging the president to drag the US into a war. Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Greene, in an unusual break with Trump, openly criticised the president's stance on the Israel-Iran conflict, writing on X: 'Foreign wars/intervention/regime change put America last, kill innocent people, are making us broke, and will ultimately lead to our destruction.' Other prominent Republican senators, including Josh Hawley and Rand Paul, have urged the president to avoid US involvement in an offensive against Iran. Another Republican congressman, Thomas Massie, has gone even further. He has joined with a coalition of Democrats in filing a House resolution under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which would seek to prevent Trump from engaging in 'unauthorized hostilities' with Iran without Congressional consent. These Republicans may believe their views are popular with their electoral base. In an Economist/YouGov poll in June 2025, 53% of Republicans stated that they did not think the US military should get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. But Donald Trump does seem to enjoy widespread support in the US for his position that the US cannot allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. According to CNN data analysis, 83% of Republicans, 79% independents, and 79% of Democrats, agree with the president's position on this issue. This slightly confusing split suggests there could be US voter support for air strikes, but it's clear there would not be that same support for troops on the ground. IranInfogram Resistance from ultra-Trump die-hards, however, might put them on the wrong side of the president in the long-term. Greg Sargent, a writer at The New Republic magazine, believes that, 'people become enemies of Trump not when they substantively work against some principle he supposedly holds dear, but rather when they publicly criticize him … or become an inconvenience in any way'. So why is Trump, to the dismay of many from within the Maga faithful, seemingly abandoning the anti-war tenet of his 'America first' doctrine? Jacob Heilbrunn, editor of The National Interest magazine, thinks that 'now that Israel's assault on Iran appears to be successful, Trump wants in on the action'. The president has several prominent Republican hawks urging him to do exactly that, and order the US Air Force to deploy their 'bunker-buster bombs'' to destroy Iran's underground arsenals. One of these is Senator Lindsey Graham. Earlier this week on Fox News, he told Trump to be "all in … in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat. If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.' Former Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell is also advocating US military action. He told CNN: 'What's happening here is some of the isolationist movement led by Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon are distressed we may be helping the Israelis defeat the Iranians,' adding that its 'been kind of a bad week for the isolationists' in the party. The same Economist/YouGov poll mentioned earlier showed that the stance taken by these Republicans – that Iran poses a threat to the US – is a position shared by a majority of GOP voters, with 69% viewing Iran as either an immediate and serious threat to the US, or at least somewhat of a serious threat. Some believe that Trump's evolving attitude towards American military involvement in the worsening crisis in the Middle East, however, is not a volte-face on isolationism, or an ideological pivot to the virtues of attacking Iran. Ross Douthat of the New York Times has observed that Trump 'has never been a principled noninterventionist' and that 'his deal-making style has always involved the threat of force as a crucial bargaining chip'. It is always difficult to fully determine what Trump's foreign policy doctrine actually is. It is useful, however, to reflect on some of the president's overseas actions from his first term. In April 2018, following a suspected chemical weapons attack by the forces of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad in a Damascus suburb, Trump ordered US air strikes in retaliation for what he called an 'evil and despicable attack' that left 'mothers and fathers, infants and children thrashing in pain and gasping for air'. This led the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic magazine, Jeffrey Goldberg, to describe Trump as 'something wholly unique in the history of the presidency: an isolationist interventionist'. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Richard Hargy does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Daily Mail
16-06-2025
- Politics
- Daily Mail
Trump delivers dire threat to Iran amid escalating Israel conflict
President Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social early Sunday morning to set the record straight in regards to America's lack of involvement in the developing conflict between Israel and Iran in the Middle East. 'The U.S. had nothing to do with the attack on Iran, tonight,' the president wrote. 'If we are attacked in any way, shape or form by Iran, the full strength and might of the U.S. Armed Forces will come down on you at levels never seen before. However, we can easily get a deal done between Iran and Israel, and end this bloody conflict!!!' he added. The president has consistently prided himself on being the only one of his compatriots to not start any new wars while being in office. Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who legislates with a heavy libertarian streak in his Republicanism, was one to acknowledge Trump's foreign policy record this weekend, writing 'No new wars on your watch—and you continue to push for a leaner, more accountable government. We appreciate your commitment to putting America first,' in a Saturday post on X celebrating the president's birthday. Yet, other more hawkish Republicans cheered Trump's decision to allow Israel to strike Iran earlier this week. They have been urging him to take more aggressive approach in the Middle East. 'Game on,' wrote Sen. Lindsey Graham on social media. 'Pray for Israel. Donald Trump doesn't mess around. Bombs away,' cheered Rep. Randy Fine of Florida on social media after the attacks. Trump's first Secretary of State and former CIA director Mike Pompeo appeared on Fox News on Friday morning, greeting hosts by noting it was 'a very good morning' 'There was literally zero evidence that the negotiations were going to lead to a good outcome,' he said about Trump's peace talks. 'I think the Israeli leadership finally decided not only did they have the moment to do this, but they had the tools and resources to effectively obliterate much of the Iranian regime's military programs.' Pompeo cheered on the strikes as a demonstration of 'Western resolve' to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Speaking with ABC News Sunday morning, Trump addressed reports that Israel was encouraging Administration to join the conflict with Iran to eliminate its nuclear program. "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not at this moment involved," the president told ABC News. Trump also addressed a rumor that Russian president Vladimir Putin way be open to serving as a mediator between Iran and Israel. 'Yeah, I would be open to it. He is ready. He called me about it. We had a long talk about it. We talked about this more than his situation. This is something I believe is going to get resolved,' the president said of his Russian counterpart to ABC News. On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump himself often promised to be a peacemaker and the conflict between Israel and Gaza , as well as Russia and Ukraine. During a rally in Washington, D.C. the day before he was sworn in for a second term this past January, Trump declared ,'I will end the war in Ukraine, stop the chaos in the Middle East and prevent World War III from happening, and you have no idea how close we are.' While recently visiting the Middle East to announce historic trade deals with Gulf nations, Trump also promised to help usher in a new era of peace to the region. Addressing an audience at the Saudi-US Investment Forum in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, in May, Trump aimed to inspire Middle Eastern leaders to set centuries of conflict aside, and to stop ensure nations are 'not bombing each other out of existence.' 'Before our eyes a new generation of leaders is transcending the ancient conflicts of tired divisions of the past and forging a future where the Middle East is defined by commerce, not chaos; where it exports technology, not terrorism; and where people of different nations, religions, and creeds are building cities together, not bombing each other out of existence. We don't want that,' Trump noted back in May. Trump's trip to the Middle East last month, the first foreign trip of his second term, notably did not include a visit to Israel. Trump's Truth Social post came mere hours after displays of America's military might rolled down Constitution Avenue and flew over a crowd in Washington, D.C. during Saturday's parade to commemorate 250 years of the United States Army. The event also coincided with the president's 79th birthday.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Opinion - How many more useless deaths before we admit Trump was always right on Ukraine?
Two serious and literally life or death questions: Since when did trying to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of people — including countless children — become something to be criticized? Conversely, when did sending hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers into the teeth of the Russian war machine with absolutely no plausible plan to win become the untouchable go-to policy of certain neoconservatives, many on the left and a fair number of editorial writers? I thought of these questions while reading two recent columns. The first is by Rich Lowry from the New York Post, titled 'Trump is getting the Ukraine-Russia war all wrong — and he's making it even harder on himself.' The other is by former diplomat Bridget Brink in the Detroit Free Press, titled 'I was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. I resigned because of Trump's foreign policy.' There is much Lowry has written over the years that I believe to be spot on. That said, I have disagreed with much he has written about Ukraine since the start of the war — his latest column included. Some believe Lowry to be a megaphone for the neocon class, which always seems to be advocating for the U.S. military to engage in 'forever wars.' Lowry was also the former editor of National Review, a magazine that in March 2016 ran an editorial titled 'Never Trump' and that seemed to become the epicenter of the 'Never Trump' movement for certain neocons and entrenched, elitist Republicans. The constant theme for those criticizing Trump's consistent stance against the Ukraine war and a much-needed ceasefire is that Putin is evil and must be defeated at all costs. Fine. If using the people of Ukraine as cheap disposable pawns to fight a proxy war against Russia and Putin has been the end game from the start, simply admit it. Don't pretend you are trying to save the people of Ukraine or that nation's infrastructure. In the lead up to the Iraq War more than 20 years ago, there were a steady stream of neocons, pundits and 'experts' advocating for that invasion to overthrow the 'evil' Saddam Hussein, who were coldly and impassionedly viewing the process as some sort of board game or sporting event, with human pawns to be played with at will. 'Experts' eagerly pushed for war who had no skin in the game. Meaning they were not in the military, they would not be walking point in the coming combat, nor would any of their relatives or friends. How wise or 'courageous' is it to call for a war from luxurious offices thousands of miles from the pending horror? And what was the end result of that 'justified' war? Approximately 4,500 American soldiers killed; 32,000 wounded; between 100,000 and 400,000 Iraqi deaths, depending upon the study; and a Middle East that is still destabilized, spawning endless pockets of terrorism. Next, we have the column from Bridget Brink, a former professional diplomat who, to some, seems to be virtue signaling her disgust of Trump to the far-left echo chamber of Trump haters. That is most certainly her right. In her column, she describes what Putin and Russia have done in Ukraine as 'pure evil.' She further states that: 'Peace at any price is not peace at all — it is appeasement.' Okay. And just what is her plan for Ukraine to 'win' the war against the 'evil' Putin and Russia? As Trump has asked from day one, how many more lives must be sacrificed before enough is enough? The Pentagon and CIA have estimated that well over 1 million people have been killed or wounded in the war, with much of Ukraine's infrastructure turned into rubble. Since day one, President Trump has been calling for an end to this war. He has done so for two incredibly important reasons. First, to stop the senseless slaughter of Ukrainian and Russian soldiers as well as Ukrainian civilians. Next, to warn of the many tripwires littering the battlefield, which could be stepped on and trigger World War III — leading to the deaths of millions. Last week on Truth Social, the president posted in all caps, 'I WILL BE SPEAKING, BY TELEPHONE, TO PRESIDENT VLADIMIR PUTIN OF RUSSIA ON MONDAY, AT 10:00 A.M. THE SUBJECTS OF THE CALL WILL BE, STOPPING THE 'BLOODBATH' THAT IS KILLING, ON AVERAGE, MORE THAN 5000 RUSSIAN AND UKRAINIAN SOLDIERS A WEEK…I WILL THEN BE SPEAKING TO PRESIDENT ZELENSKYY OF UKRAINE AND THEN, WITH…VARIOUS MEMBERS OF NATO. HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE A PRODUCTIVE DAY, A CEASEFIRE WILL TAKE PLACE, AND THIS VERY VIOLENT WAR, A WAR THAT SHOULD HAVE NEVER HAPPENED, WILL END. GOD BLESS US ALL!!!' Speaking of a ceasefire, last December I wrote a piece for this site titled, 'Were 750,000 additional lives wasted in Ukraine for less than nothing?' That number was extrapolated from a ceasefire reportedly offered to Putin now over 36 months ago, which was also reportedly 'scuttled' and 'sabotaged' by forces within the administrations of President Joe Biden and U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson. Now, three years later, to Trump's point, 'more than 5,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers' are being killed per week. For what? How many dead or wounded before those advocating that Ukraine fight to the last Ukrainian admit that an immediate ceasefire is the right and humane solution — and has always been? Haters are going to hate, but if Trump had been listened to three years ago, 1 million people would not have been killed or wounded. What is the worth of those lost and maimed lives? Douglas MacKinnon is a former White House and Pentagon official. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
