Trump’s Schizophrenia

It will not be easy to return to the position of a balanced superpower but the hope of witnessing as soon as possible the end of Trump’s schizophrenic foreign policy puts a great responsibility on his competitors

For a few days, everyone feared the worst would happen. Many thought that the killing of the leader of the Iranian Pasdaran Quds Forces Qassem Soleimani could trigger a new war. Luckily, common sense seems to have prevailed over the rhetoric of belligerent statements. Iran’s response, which consisted of a missile attack against two US bases in Iraq, resulted in a few wounded and zero casualties. On the other side of the ring, Donald Trump also seemingly wants to tone things down: “The United States is ready for peace,” he said while speaking to the nation. The American President has announced new sanctions against Iran, but also momentarily put back in his drawer the list of 52 potential Iranian targets. Meanwhile, rumours suggest the possible the opening of talks between Washington and Tehran, through the diplomatic channel of Switzerland.

It is difficult to grasp the strategy of the US Administration in the region. Trump went from the cancellation of the Iranian Nuclear Treaty (JCPoA) to the announcement of the withdrawal from Syria, and then immediately afterwards to the attacks on pro-Iranian militias and the killing of Soleimani, which received the support of Israel but not that of the other allies in the region.

Beyond the searched resonance of the move against the Iranian general and the desire to display to the world the American military capability, it is difficult to find the scope of Trump’s strategic decisions and seems legitimate to question its logicality.

If the American President really wanted to prevent the development of a military nuclear programme, why then would he leave the JCPoA, an international agreement reached under the aegis of the UN whose very purpose was to contain Iran and to reintegrate it into the international system? How can the United States combine a willingness to minimize their exposure in the Middle Eastern (as President Trump repeatedly announced) with the stated goal of curbing Tehran’s regional influence no matter the costs?

If the Trump presidency hoped that an aggressive move would allow it to pursue its objectives quickly and minimize the use of resources, the feeling is that the actual results were rather disappointing. The successes of this Administration are very few (not only in the Middle East) and the lead appears sometimes schizophrenic.

With the overcoming of American hegemonic interventionism and the profound mutation of the international context – which has seen the emergence of new powers on the geopolitical chessboard – the US seems to lack the political capability that is necessary to develop a new vision.

Trump relied on the nationalist message of “America First”, a doctrine which privileges the immediate economic and internal security interests. The unilateralist approach to external relations has transformed the allies into competitors. It is enough to think about the difficult relations with the European Union (the theological endorsement to Brexit!), the continuous attacks to NATO (defined as expensive and anachronistic), the muscular commercial policy and the decision to leave the nuclear non-proliferation agreements.

The outcome of the next American elections will have profound implications for international politics. If Trump is re-elected, he will persist in his muscular isolationism. However, would a democratic president be able to produce a different foreign policy?

We are still at the first stages of crowded Democratic primaries and it is difficult to shed any light.

Before Soleimani’s murder, there was very little discussion on foreign policy, while domestic policy issues (health, economy, climate) dominated the debate. Although polls show that foreign policy is not a priority for the average American voter, it is also true that the topic had a central role in the presidential campaigns during focal periods (see post-September 11). Whether or not foreign policy will be a relevant matter of discussion will depend on what happens in the Middle East in the coming months.

In regards to the democratic debate, the unanimous response of the candidates has been to condemn Trump for what everyone considers to be a reckless move which has increased tensions in the Middle East and risked to lead to a war with Iran.

Joe Biden has emerged as the only candidate with a relevant record of experience in the field of international relations, since he spent eight years around the world as Barack Obama’s lieutenant and two years as chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senat. Nevertheless, his experienced profile has also exposed him to the attacks of other candidates. For example, Biden’s vote in favour of the invasion of Iraq in 2002 has led Senator Bernie Sanders to sharply criticize the former Vice-President on the issue.

At that time, Bloomberg had also supported the military intervention wanted by Republican President George W. Bush. Pete Buttigieg, who referred to his experience in Afghanistan during one of the debates, called the invasion of Iraq “the worst foreign policy decision ever”. Senator Elizabeth Warren called instead for the withdrawal of American troops from the Middle East, while Amy Klobuchar and Joe Biden said that the U.S. must maintain a military presence in the region. All the candidates have somehow argued the need to avoid starting new “endless wars” (one of Trump’s electoral slogans in 2016).

What they all have in common is the desire for a radical change from the approach held by the current presidency. This would mean, among other shifts, a heeling of the divisions with European countries (NATO, G7, climate change…), the end of the unilateralism of “America First” and the modification of some alliances (such as of the one with the Saudis).

So far, also Trump’s electoral campaign has not focused on foreign policy issues. During his speech on the State of the Union, the president did not even mention North Korea. In fact, after two years of high hopes, glittering summits with Kim Jong-un and exhausting negotiations on denuclearisation, the issue is still far from being solved. In 2018, Trump said that “there is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea”; a statement he did not repeat this year. Instead, he talked about Venezuela (Maduro is, apparently, the only dictator he does not like). As for Iran, the country with which only a few weeks earlier he had almost gone to war, the president made only one remark: “The Iranian regime must abandon its search for weapons of mass destruction and must work for the good of its people. Because of our sanctions, the Iranian economy is going very badly. We can help them recover…”

In any case, convincing Americans that a multilateral policy better safeguards their interests will be challenging for anyone. That’s why this time, if the Dems want to have credible chances in November, they have to choose very wisely their candidate for the upcoming presidential election.

@GiuScognamiglio

This article is also published in the March/April issue of eastwest.

You can buy the magazine at newsstand or subscribe.