Trump’s foreign policy
Some thought Trump was really defending MAGA’s isolationist viewpoint and that he actually wanted to end the wars. Others believed that he was as belligerent as his predecessors.
Who is right?
Perhaps a bit of both. Perhaps he wanted to stop the war in Ukraine and the one in Gaza. Perhaps he wanted a division of labor: Europe would now take care of Russia and Israel of Iran, while the United States would take care of China. This is exactly what Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told Europeans in February 2025.
According to this view, withdrawing from Ukraine and ending aid to Israel would allow the United States to focus its efforts on China. But does this vindicate those who see it as a belligerent? What does pivoting toward China mean? Would it be to start a new Cold War or to provoke a real military confrontation?
According to MAGA ideology, we should stick to a Cold War. According to Brian Berletic, Trump is like every other president and is ready to engage in a military confrontation with China.
Who is right?
Again, maybe a bit of both. Trump really just wants to make deals. But he’s like a captain at the helm of a ship controlling a wheel that’s spinning with no traction. It’s the deep state that knows what needs to be done. Trump was convinced to continue funding Israel and Ukraine while adopting the posture of arbiter, a mediator. This posture would respect the MAGA spirit without burning ties with Ukraine and Israel too quickly. As a negotiator, Trump would be the one who wants to end the war from the perspective of public opinion. As an intermediary, he would demonstrate that these are not his wars.
At the same time, he might also have been convinced that to achieve the goal of concluding deals without belligerence as quickly as possible, Russia should be allowed to finish the dirty work in 50 days: until Ukraine surrenders and the regime changes. Trump could then implement the agreement on natural resources and rare earths with Ukraine (like the agreement concluded with Congo). Israel should also be allowed to continue until Gaza is conquered and its population is displaced. It could then resume negotiations with Saudi Arabia to include it in the Abraham Accords. In other words, he would have been sold the idea that continuing wars was the shortest path to isolationism (!).
But didn’t he display belligerence during his first term? Perhaps he felt compelled to do so to free himself from Russiagate and to submit to his pro-Israel donors.
But didn’t he take over and drop bombs on Iran? In this respect, it may be that both the attack on Iran and the Iranian response were instances of « Kabuki theater. » Both sides reportedly announced to each other in advance what the intended targets would be, so that they could then announce a ceasefire without either side losing face.
Even in his second term, Trump doesn’t have the final say on US foreign policy. He’s a walking caricature. He’s incompetent and inconsistent. He’s extremely dangerous, and I would never have voted for him. He’s not done wreaking havoc, and we must always fear the worst as long as he’s in power. But he’s at the head of a declining empire that, independently of him, has not finished trying everything to assert itself. This was the case before him, and it will be the case after him.
Michel Seymour 