This article examines how Mead's principles help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of Trump and Harris's policies. It highlights the critical importance of a U.S. foreign policy that safeguards Israel against these global threats.
By Dr. Tim Orr
American foreign policy is critical to global stability and security, particularly in the volatile Middle East. As we analyze the contrasting approaches of the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations towards Israel, we must understand how these policies are rooted in the historical schools of thought described by Walter Russell Mead in "Special Providence," a book I read last year. These perspectives—Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian—offer a framework to evaluate the strategies of different U.S. administration's foreign policy and that will be applied to their impact on Israel.
Israel, a beacon of democracy in a region often marred by conflict and authoritarianism, relies heavily on robust U.S. support to navigate a complex geopolitical landscape. The urgency of maintaining a foreign policy that protects Israel cannot be overstated, especially in the face of rising global antisemitism fueled by progressive movements and radical Islamism. This article delves into how Trump and Harris's foreign policies, guided by these enduring schools of thought, have shaped U.S.-Israel relations and the broader Middle Eastern dynamics.
As we explore these differing approaches, it is essential to recognize the profound impact of U.S. foreign policy on Israel's security and regional stability. The increasing global movements towards antisemitism, whether from progressive ideologies or radical Islamist agendas, underscore the need for a foreign policy that steadfastly supports Israel. This article examines how the principles laid out by Mead help us understand the strengths and weaknesses of Obama/Biden, Trump, and Biden/Harris's policies, highlighting the critical importance of a U.S. foreign policy that safeguards Israel against these global threats.
Walter Russell Mead outlines four principal schools of thought that have shaped U.S. foreign policy: Hamiltonian, Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, and Jacksonian. Mead argues that American foreign policy is a dynamic interplay of these four schools of thought, each contributing to the overall strategy in different historical contexts. The book traces how these ideologies have influenced key events and decisions in U.S. history, from the nation's founding to the present. Through his analysis, Mead provides a comprehensive understanding of the complexities and nuances of American foreign policy. He highlights the strengths and weaknesses of each school and how they have collectively contributed to the United States' role on the global stage. The book underscores the importance of understanding these historical influences to effectively navigate contemporary foreign policy challenges.
Hamiltonian Tradition
The Hamiltonian perspective emphasizes the importance of a strong national government and a robust economy, advocating for the U.S. to engage globally to secure economic interests and maintain a balance of power. Trump's administration reflected aspects of this tradition through its strategic economic and military alliances, particularly with Israel, seen as a pivotal ally in the Middle East. Trump's policies, such as the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, were strategic moves designed to bolster economic and military ties with a key regional player, ensuring U.S. interests were well-protected.
Wilsonian Tradition
The Wilsonian school is committed to spreading democracy and international cooperation. This perspective aligns more closely with the Biden-Harris administration, which emphasizes multilateralism, human rights, and diplomatic engagement. Harris's approach, advocating for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and re-engaging with international bodies like the United Nations, reflects a Wilsonian belief in diplomacy and international norms.
Jeffersonian Tradition
The Jeffersonian approach prioritizes democracy at home and is often skeptical of extensive foreign entanglements. While neither Trump nor Harris fully embodies this tradition, Trump's focus on "America First" partially aligns with its cautious foreign engagement principles. Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal and his prioritization of direct national interests over broader international commitments showcase this cautious approach.
Jacksonian Tradition
The Jacksonian tradition emphasizes populist nationalism and a robust military response to threats. Trump’s policies, especially his strong support for Israel and aggressive stance towards Iran resonate with this perspective, reflecting a belief in decisive action and national honor.
During the first term of the Obama-Biden administration (2009-2013), the U.S. maintained a stance towards Iran that largely continued the Bush administration's policies. These policies were characterized by a mix of diplomatic efforts, economic sanctions, and the threat of military action to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. The key elements of this approach included:
Shift in Strategy During the Second Term: Appeasement and the Iran Nuclear Deal
In the second term of the Obama-Biden administration (2013-2017), there was a significant shift towards a more conciliatory approach, culminating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal. The administration pursued direct negotiations with Iran, leading to the JCPOA in 2015. This deal involved lifting economic sanctions in exchange for Iran agreeing to limit its nuclear program and allow comprehensive inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
Impact on Gaza: Connection to Iran's Nuclear Program and Terrorism Spending
The U.S. policy towards Iran, particularly the economic relief provided by the JCPOA, had significant implications for the Gaza situation, especially regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions and its spending on terrorism. Here’s how it affected Gaza:
Current Situation
Today, the Gaza situation remains volatile, with periodic escalations of violence and ongoing humanitarian challenges. The U.S. policy towards Iran, particularly the effects of the JCPOA and subsequent actions, continues to play a role in this dynamic:
Thus, the U.S. policy towards Iran under the Obama-Biden administration, with its initial continuation of sanctions followed by the JCPOA, has had enduring effects on the Gaza situation. The economic relief provided to Iran under the JCPOA enabled increased support for Hamas, contributing to the ongoing conflict and humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The strategic decisions made during this period continue to resonate, impacting the geopolitical landscape and the lives of those in Gaza today.
Trump's administration demonstrated unparalleled support for Israel, reflecting a robust combination of realism and neoconservatism. His policies were characterized by decisive actions that strongly favored Israel's interests, aligning with nationalist and realist principles.
Recognition of Jerusalem as Capital
One of the most significant actions the Trump administration took was the official recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, followed by relocating the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This bold move departed from decades of U.S. foreign policy and was widely seen as a pivotal shift in U.S.-Middle East relations. Scholars argue that this decision reflects Trump's realist approach, prioritizing strategic alliances and recognizing power realities (Inbar, 2018). Despite international controversy and opposition, this move demonstrated Trump's unwavering commitment to Israel's claims and solidified its status in the region.
The implications of this move were profound, both domestically and internationally. Domestically, it resonated strongly with Trump's evangelical Christian base, which views Jerusalem as a pivotal element in biblical prophecy. Internationally, it rightly challenged the status quo, forcing a reevaluation of long-held but ineffective diplomatic strategies. The move also demonstrated leadership and decisiveness, something sorely lacking in previous administrations, and sent a clear message about U.S. support for its closest ally in the region (Beauchamp, 2017).
Abraham Accords
Trump's administration brokered the Abraham Accords, a series of normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab nations, including the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco. These accords were a strategic masterstroke to reshape Middle Eastern alliances, countering Iranian influence and fostering regional stability. The Abraham Accords represent a pragmatic, realist approach to foreign policy, emphasizing creating new partnerships and reducing longstanding hostilities. According to Miller and Steltzer (2020), these agreements signify a shift towards a more cooperative regional order, with Israel playing a central role in the new alignment.
The Abraham Accords have significant implications for regional politics and security. They marked the first time in over two decades that Arab countries had normalized relations with Israel, signaling a shift in regional dynamics and the formation of a new coalition against Iranian influence. These agreements have opened up new economic, technological, and security cooperation opportunities between Israel and its new Arab partners. However, the accords have also faced criticism for bypassing the Palestinian issue, with many arguing that they undermine the Palestinian cause by normalizing relations with Israel without addressing the core conflict (Abu Dhabi, 2020).
According to data from the United Nations, trade between Israel and UAE increased by over 500% in the first year following the accords, indicating significant economic benefits. Furthermore, security cooperation has strengthened, with joint military exercises and intelligence sharing becoming more common, contributing to regional stability and countering Iranian influence.
Support for Israeli Security
Throughout his presidency, Trump maintained strong military and economic support for Israel. His administration emphasized Israel’s role as a key U.S. ally in the Middle East, ensuring continued assistance in military aid and economic cooperation. This support aligns with neoconservative principles, prioritizing security and defense partnerships. Sharp (2019) noted that this unwavering support reinforced Israel's strategic advantage and underscored the U.S. commitment to its ally's security.
Under Trump, the U.S. and Israel signed a record-breaking $38 billion military aid package, ensuring continued American support for Israel's defense capabilities over the next decade. This package included funding for missile defense systems, such as the Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow 3, which are critical for protecting Israel from various threats. Trump's administration also approved the sale of advanced weaponry, including F-35 fighter jets, enhancing Israel's qualitative military edge in the region (Miller & Sullivan, 2018).
Withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Deal
Trump's decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), commonly known as the Iran nuclear deal, was a significant move aligning with Israeli concerns about Iran’s nuclear capabilities. This action reflected a neoconservative stance on security, demonstrating a commitment to countering perceived threats through decisive, unilateral actions. According to Katzman (2020), this withdrawal signaled a shift towards a more aggressive stance against Iran, aligning closely with Israeli security interests.
The withdrawal from the JCPOA was met with mixed reactions. Supporters argued that the deal was flawed and that its sunset clauses and inspection regime were insufficient to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Critics contended that the withdrawal isolated the U.S. from its European allies, who remained committed to the deal, and increased the risk of military conflict in the region. Following the withdrawal, the U.S. reimposed stringent sanctions on Iran, leading to significant economic hardship and escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran (Maloney, 2019).
As part of the Biden administration, Kamala Harris’s policies reflect different principles, emphasizing liberal internationalism and multilateralism. Her approach seeks to balance support for Israel with broader regional and international considerations.
Support for Two-State Solution
The Biden-Harris administration supports a negotiated two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This position aligns with the international consensus and emphasizes diplomacy to achieve lasting peace. Harris's approach reflects a commitment to finding a balanced solution that addresses Israelis' and Palestinians' aspirations and concerns. Quandt (2021) noted that this approach seeks to revive traditional diplomacy and restore U.S. credibility in peace.
The two-state solution has been a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy for decades, yet its feasibility has increasingly been questioned. The Biden-Harris administration’s emphasis on this solution reflects an effort to return to a more balanced and diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This includes reversing some of Trump's policies that were perceived as one-sided, such as reopening the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem to engage more directly with Palestinian leaders and restoring aid to the Palestinian Authority and UNRWA, the UN agency supporting Palestinian refugees (Landler, 2021).
Re-engagement with International Organizations
The administration has re-engaged with international bodies such as the United Nations, seeking a more cooperative approach to Middle East peace efforts. This multilateral strategy aims to build broader coalitions and enhance diplomatic efforts, contrasting with the Trump administration's more unilateral actions. According to Lynch (2021), this re-engagement represents a shift towards a more inclusive and participatory foreign policy.
Re-engagement with international organizations signals a return to a more traditional U.S. foreign policy approach, emphasizing diplomacy and multilateralism. This includes rejoining the UN Human Rights Council and the World Health Organization, from which the Trump administration had withdrawn. By participating in these forums, the Biden-Harris administration aims to restore U.S. leadership on the global stage and work collaboratively with other nations to address common challenges, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Patrick, 2021).
Human Rights Focus
Under the Biden-Harris administration, there is a greater emphasis on human rights and international law. This focus includes criticism of settlement expansion and actions perceived as undermining peace prospects. Harris’s approach reflects liberal internationalism’s commitment to democratic values and human rights, aiming to ensure peace efforts align with international standards. As observed by Goldstein (2020), this emphasis on human rights introduces a normative dimension to U.S. policy in the region.
The Biden-Harris administration has been vocal about human rights concerns in the Israeli-Palestinian context, criticizing Israeli settlement activities and potential human rights violations. This stance has led to increased pressure on Israel regarding its policies in the West Bank and Gaza. By emphasizing human rights, the administration seeks to hold all parties accountable and encourage a more just and equitable resolution to the conflict (Makdisi, 2020).
Continuing Security Support
Despite differences in approach, the Biden-Harris administration supports Israel’s security. Military aid and cooperation remain key components of the U.S.-Israel relationship, ensuring that Israel retains its defensive capabilities while the administration pursues broader diplomatic goals. This continuity underscores the bipartisan nature of the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security, as highlighted by Mearsheimer and Walt (2016).
The administration has reaffirmed its commitment to Israel's security through ongoing military aid and collaboration on defense technologies. This includes continuing the implementation of the $38 billion military aid package signed under the Obama administration and maintaining support for Israel's missile defense systems. The Biden-Harris administration's approach seeks to balance security assistance with diplomatic efforts to advance regional peace and stability (Shapiro, 2021).
The differing approaches of the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations have distinct implications for U.S.-Israel relations. Trump's policies offer more robust and unambiguous support for Israel than the more balanced, often criticized stance of the Biden-Harris administration.
Diplomatic Dynamics
Trump’s unilateral actions, such as the bold move of relocating the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, were unequivocally supportive of Israel’s government despite the international controversy. This decisive action not only solidified Israel's claim over its capital but also demonstrated Trump's unwavering commitment to Israel's sovereignty and security. In contrast, the Biden-Harris administration’s multilateral approach, which includes re-engagement with international bodies and a renewed emphasis on the two-state solution, risks diluting this strong support. By attempting to balance Palestinian concerns with Israeli interests, the current administration may undermine the clear and decisive backing that Israel needs in a region fraught with instability. Trump's policies, by stark contrast, provided Israel with the unequivocal support necessary to maintain its strategic advantage and security (Telhami, 2019).
Iran Policy
Trump’s hardline stance on Iran closely aligned with Israeli preferences, emphasizing maximum pressure and isolation. The withdrawal from the JCPOA was a clear demonstration of Trump's commitment to curbing Iran's nuclear ambitions and protecting Israel from potential threats. This approach resonated strongly with Israeli security concerns, providing a much-needed counterbalance to Iran's regional aspirations. On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration's potential re-engagement with the JCPOA introduces uncertainty and risks undermining the progress made under Trump. While the current administration may seek a more balanced approach, the reality is that Israel's security interests could be compromised by any concessions made to Iran. Trump's decisive actions in withdrawing from the JCPOA and imposing stringent sanctions on Iran were clear indicators of his unwavering support for Israel's security (Maloney, 2021).
Human Rights and Settlements
The Biden-Harris administration’s focus on human rights could lead to increased pressure on Israel regarding settlements and the treatment of Palestinians. This approach contrasts sharply with Trump’s more permissive stance, which allowed Israel greater freedom to manage its own security and territorial concerns. By emphasizing human rights and international norms, the current administration risks alienating a key ally and undermining Israel's efforts to maintain security and stability within its borders. Trump's policies, by allowing Israel the autonomy to make critical decisions regarding settlements and security, ensured that Israel could act in its best interests without undue external pressure. While well-intentioned, the Biden-Harris administration's approach may inadvertently embolden anti-Israel sentiments and undermine the strong bilateral relationship cultivated under Trump (Brown, 2020).
Humanitarian Concerns
The humanitarian impact of both administrations' policies needs a more nuanced discussion. In Gaza, the increased militarization and conflict have exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, leading to widespread poverty, unemployment, and limited access to essential services. In the West Bank, settlement expansions and security measures have affected Palestinian daily life. Both administrations' policies have significantly impacted the humanitarian conditions in these areas, and a balanced foreign policy must address these challenges to promote lasting peace and stability.
Conclusion
In summary, the foreign policies of the Trump and Biden-Harris administrations towards Israel starkly contrast in their methods and philosophies. Trump's approach, characterized by strong, unilateral actions, favored Israel's current government and bolstered its regional standing through strategic alliances and an aggressive stance against Iran. In contrast, Harris's approach emphasizes a more balanced, multilateral strategy considering broader regional and international dynamics, prioritizing diplomacy, human rights, and international cooperation. As the U.S. navigates its role in the Middle East, the legacies of both administrations will undoubtedly shape future policies and the ongoing quest for peace and stability in the region.
References
