Alwaght- The US is confused and its foreign policy is largely paradoxical and truly lucks a clear and predictable orientation. In the past decades, with the change of administrations in the US, home and foreign policy was undergoing major changes. For example, Donald Trump went a path different from that of his predecessor Barack Obama, and then his path saw a shift under Joe Biden. But things are way different now and we are seeing conflicting and a kind of perplexity in the foreign policy short time after Trump's inauguration. Since his comeback to the White House earlier this year, the US has met a chaotic collection of contradictory foreign policy orientations.
Trump-style mess
Trump's stances and measures over the past three months have shown that the current president is interested in radically reshaping the country's traditional foreign policy.
In the past three months, Trump has ravaged the American relations with Europe, questioned Washington's commitment to NATO, blamed Ukraine for Russian war, cut off military aid to Kiev, withdrawn from key UN institutions, waged a global tariff war, halted US foreign aids, and declared his goal to expand US territory by threatening to take over Canada, Panama, Greenland, and Gaza. The collection of Trump's actions shows that Trump is seeking to nix the old US post-World War II rules of order that the country itself imposed on the international system and replace them with new rules. But to what extent will the US actually succeed in this aim?
Support for NATO and other Western institutions is a trend the US itself established after the WWII, but now Trump is questioning all this. This behavior may be driven by Washington leaders' feeling of threat to the American global hegemony and the need to restore their global dominant position. The global multipolar atmosphere, Chinese economic position boost, and rise of regional powers in East Asia all bore signs of change of international equation from unipolar to multipolar. But can Washington reshuffle the current order to its own advantage?
Filling the US void
Nicholas Bakulin, an expert at Yale Law School and former director of Amnesty International in Asia and the Pacific, has raised the question in a piece published by Foreign Policy magazine, asking that if the US turns away from its two traditional sources of power — its leadership of the post-war international system and its economic position as the most advanced democracy in the West — will this retreat of the White House not mean new opportunities for geopolitical rivals such as Russia and China? By cutting off American aid to African countries, will China not replace the US in Africa? Will Russia not fill the void left by the US in international organizations?, he asks. The answer to these questions is almost certainly yes, and there is no doubt that wherever Washington walks back, other countries will walk ahead.
Return to Monroe's isolationism
What it seems given Trump's approach and what many experts suggest, the Trump's US is shifting way to the Monroe Doctrine; a doctrine one of whose principles is maintaining geopolitical distance with Europe. Some members of Trump's administration, including Vice President J.D. Vance, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hexath, are critical of Europe. In recent discussions among members of Trump's administration, some officials have often expressed their dissatisfaction with the US financial and economic support for Europe, but on the other hand, it does not seem that all American politicians in Congress or other US government institutions agree with Trump's return to Monroe's isolationism. These differences within the US over how Washington should deal with the US European allies or the challenges of the Middle East are one of the main reasons for the contradictory and sometimes conflicting orientations of Trump administration officials.
Trump's contradiction: three case examples
Trump administration has pursued three issues in relation to Europe and West Asia over the past three months in which it has gone nowhere so far. The contradictory and inconsistent approaches of American officials are one of the reasons for running into an impasse in pursuit of these aims:
Failure to put an end to Ukraine war: Before his comeback, Trump had vowed that he would end the Ukraine war within "24 hours" if he won the election. But three months after taking the presidential oath, he is nowhere close to achieving this goal. Perhaps one of the reasons for the stalemate in the Ukrainian ceasefire is Trump's approach to the issue. Trump's perception of stopping the war in Ukraine is based on his close personal relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, but the political reality is different. In fact, not only has the promise of an immediate end to the war not been fulfilled, but also with the cessation of aid to Ukraine and the widening gap between the White House and its European allies, the US is now in an ambiguous position. On the other hand, Trump has failed to persuade Russia to accept peace.
Collapse of Gaza ceasefire: Despite Trump's promise for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza, the deal survived only a few weeks as a propaganda maneuver. Trump boasted a month ago about his success in convincing Israel and Hamas to strike a ceasefire deal. At the time, conservative media personality Tucker Carlson interviewed the Qatari prime minister, and both expressed their delight at Trump’s ability to broker a ceasefire in Gaza. However, this self-praise was short-lived, and the ceasefire has now collapsed by Israeli military attacks on Gaza. The Middle East Eye noted in a report that Arab analysts and diplomats say the resumption of large-scale Israeli attacks means Trump has failed to promote the narrative that the US can control its ally Israel. On the other hand, Trump's idea about Gaza has met its failure. Differences have even erupted in the orbit of Trump about interpretation of his idea about Gaza. Lindsey Graham, a Republican ally of the president, said that the US has no interest in displacing the Palestinians and occupying Gaza. Trump's idea to occupy Gaza and turn it into a tourist resort is the same idea that his son-in-law and former advisor Jared Kushner had put forward, but opposition to the plan regarding Gaza and the forced evacuation of its residents to other countries in the region has grown to such an extent that it seems impossible to imagine it being implemented.
White House's polyphony towards Iran: Trump's Iran policy has no clarity, either. New York Times reported that the Trump administration launched its Iran policy with a simple aim: Forcing Tehran to dismantle its nuclear and missile programs. However, the top US negotiator struck a smoother tone later and retreated from this goal. After the first round of Oman talks, CNN cited Steve Witkoff as saying that Iran could be allowed low-level enrichment, namely the level needed to generate electricity. However, the tone of the Americans changed shortly after, with Witkoff in a message posted online, saying that Iran must stop and destroy its nuclear enrichment and weapons program. According to informed sources, in fact, Witkoff and Vance have argued in internal meetings that insisting on the complete dismantling of Iran's nuclear program will lead the negotiations to collapse, but in contrast, Michael Waltz, Trump's national security adviser, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, continue to have a tough stance on Iran and have stressed that Tehran should not have the ability to enrich uranium. These contradictory messages and polyphony from the US have mostly stirred further Iranian distrust and therefore it is unlikely American multiplicity of voices in dealing with Iran can contribute to a sustainable deal.
