Although It Doesn’t Interest Americans, Foreign Policy Is a Central Issue

Perhaps Washington’s foreign policy and security don’t play an outstanding role in the election, but they have critical meaning for the future of the United States, no matter who sits in the White House.

The first televised debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden did not inspire much faith in the continued role of America as a world leader, yet, one of the two men will be president. Trump’s chances are diminishing, according to the polls, especially after it became clear that not even presidents can beat COVID-19 just by saying they can. Foreign policy and security issues do not play a big role in the election or in the debates. Yet, they are a central issue in policy institute discussions; that is to say, discussion about what the foreign and security policy of Washington should be in the next four years whether Trump or Biden is president.

In general, opinions are divided among three camps: There are those who believe that Trump’s policy has been a disaster for the United States and its allies, and that we must return to the policy of previous administrations.

There are others who believe that Trump’s foreign policy, which has been successful, should continue, including his Middle East policy which set up new criteria for America’s relationship with its friends and enemies alike.

And then there is a third, smaller group that maintains that the foreign policies of Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and the two presidents George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, even if they were right for their time, do not fit the changing character of the world or the social and other interests of the American people.

Followers of the first camp, representing the centrist bloc within the Democratic Party, claim that in the past, the U.S. established a “New World Order,” and that the policy of exclusion which it promulgated against the Soviet Union would serve well now in the face of threats from China, Russia and Iran. They emphasize Trump’s failure in North Korea. They admit that America does not always find the appropriate answers to the challenges that the changing world presents. But they are certain about the potential for restoring some of the achievements of the past.

Proponents of the aforementioned New World Order live in the world of illusion, say Trump’s supporters, and the decisive changes that he has made will insure that the true world order will function to the benefit of American values and interests, and those of the free world. They believe that America’s allies in Europe and Asia have exploited American generosity, both in commercial relations and in funding various international alliances, including NATO. International liberalism, if it existed in the past, is an illusion; the rule that all the nations live by is competition on the one hand and reciprocity on the other.

Also, the assumption that was popular in the past, that with economic progress China would change from communism to democracy, was a lie, and America has to contend with that both economically and militarily. Globalization brought with it more failure than achievement, and damaged the American economy and work force. With regard to security, American overdependence on international agreements led to the weakening of its military superiority. In foreign policy, America must function only according to its own interests. Of course, Trump’s followers like to quote the words of Robert Gates, Obama’s first defense secretary: “I think he [Biden] has been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.”

The main spokesman for the third group, which is especially identified with the left wing of the Democratic Party, is Ben Rhodes, former deputy national security advisor to Obama. Rhodes warns that Biden will try to return the United States to the role of world leader based on pre-Trump principles. In his opinion, Biden must “find opportunity not in the past but in the present … in the green shoots of the remarkable popular uprising following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis.”

An election defeat for Trump would be the source of democratic inspiration for other people in the world.

Rhodes has attacked Trump’s decision to leave the nuclear agreement with Iran and called for the U.S. to reinstate its participation. On the subject of the Middle East, Rhodes has called for an end to destructive relations with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, and claims that regarding the Israel-Palestinian conflict, “it is necessary to dictate the solution to both sides.”* This approach does not represent how the majority of the Democratic Party feels. Although Biden has declared that he is the Democratic Party, the left wing is trying to distance Biden’s more conservative advisers from the centers of influence.

It is possible that all of these analyses will be proven false, and that Trump, even if he loses, will “win” in any case, as an article in Foreign Affairs pointed out: “They hope that once Trump has left the Oval Office, the United States will resume its role as leader of a liberalizing world. Don’t count on it. The era of liberal U.S. hegemony is an artifact of the Cold War’s immediate afterglow. Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy, by contrast, has been the norm for most of U.S. history. As a result, Trump’s imprint could endure long after Trump himself is gone.“ They hope that once Trump has left the Oval Office, the United States will resume its role as leader of a liberalizing world.

The expectations from Israel’s point of view demand a separate article, but suffice it to say that Trump was a proven friend; Biden, although he is also rightfully called a friend, might tie that relationship to certain stipulations which are not always comfortable for Israel.

*Editor’s Note: This quotation, while accurately translated, could not be verified.