Why U.S. Foreign Policy Is So Complicated

Compared to devising and implementing most domestic policies, most successful foreign policies, especially important ones, are much more complicated and challenging.

Three examples from the early months of the second term of President Donald Trump – whom, it appears, has a very ambitious set of foreign policy objectives and goals – prove this point.

First, Mr. Trump wants to end the Russo-Ukrainian War which has now raged for three years. That conflict has not only cost hundreds of thousands of lives, military and civilian, but also brought terrible destruction to large parts of Ukraine, and increasingly Russia as well. It has also destabilized peacetime Central and Eastern Europe — and shaken the security of the rest of the continent.

Second, Mr. Trump wants to end the seemingly endless conflict in the Middle East, first by bringing about a ceasefire in Gaza, preventing the Iranians from building nuclear weapons, and then expanding the Abraham Accords that could bring long-term peace to this ancient and troubled region.

Third, Mr. Trump wants to check mainland China’s expansionism, especially regarding Taiwan and in the South China Sea, and maintain the political freedom of our allies in South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and New Zealand. At the same time, he wants to develop an equitable trade policy with China itself.

In the first case, it appears the president also desires to adopt a “reverse Nixon” policy that would dramatically reduce U.S. vulnerability against a robust Chinese-Russian military threat. In the 1970s, President Nixon stunned the diplomatic world by reaching out to mainland China, then as now a totalitarian regime, for the purpose of weakening the burgeoning alliance between the Soviet Union and China which, then as now, posed a threat to the security of the United States.

In those days, it was the Soviet Union which was the military powerhouse. Today, that power is held by China. A “reverse Nixon” strategy would seek to mend ties with Russia to counter a rising China.

What makes such a move so complicated is that it was Russia which invaded Ukraine, and that we have been, with our NATO partners, helping Ukraine. Mr. Trump has suggested a settlement in which Ukraine cedes some of its territory in order to bring about a permanent end to that war – thereby opening up an opportunity for Mr. Trump to pursue the “reverse Nixon” and stave off the mounting China threat.

Mr. Putin, however, has seemed uninterested in the olive branch, while Ukrainian President Zelensky has been reluctant to cede any territory even for an end to hostilities and recognition of Ukrainian sovereignty.

President Trump, not known for subtle diplomacy, has taken a tough approach toward Zelensky — at least until Mr. Putin renewed civilian bombing. The Ukrainians, for their part, have executed a brilliant and daring drone attack deep into Russia that destroyed a sizable portion of their jet fleet. Major European NATO countries, acting on their own, have also stepped up military aid to Ukraine and removed restrictions on it to operate inside Russia.

In the second case, President Trump is negotiating with Iran to suspend Tehran’s nuclear arms development, but without the participation of Israel, the U.S. ally which faces the most existential threat from Iran. His recent tour of the Middle East sought to improve relations with most Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, but he did not stop in Israel.

What makes this so complicated is that Israel simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. Its experience with an earlier agreement with Iran is that the totalitarian regime does not keep its word.

Furthermore, Arab nations want the Israeli military action in Gaza to end, but Israel is unwilling to do so until the threat from Hamas is eliminated and all the remaining hostages held by Hamas are returned.

Finally, Arab nations in the region want a two-state solution to the larger Palestinian conflict — something which has very little support from all sides in Israel.

In the third case, China’s own economic conditions have apparently deteriorated. Facing new high tariffs from the U.S. under President Trump, the communist regime has been forced to find new markets for the goods it previously exported to the U.S.

Moreover, having substantially upgraded its military forces, especially its naval forces, China has been increasingly aggressive about Taiwan and the South China Sea area. The U.S. Secretary of Defense has just warned about possible Chinese military action against Taiwan. These circumstances complicate President Trump’s attempts to discourage Chinese military action and forge a new trade agreement without the severe tariffs now in place.

Although President Trump often sounds bellicose and undiplomatic, it appears his real goals are to reduce or end global military hostilities and replace them with equitable trade agreements that will enable the U.S. economy to thrive. His domestic policy campaign promises have been much easier to achieve, notably in the case of sealing our borders, ending illegal or undocumented immigration, and keeping harmful drugs such as fentanyl from coming into the U.S.

Many of his promises have been kept by his extraordinary use of executive orders in the early days of his second term. For these he seems to have popular support. He does face challenges from opponents, the media establishment, and some lower courts, but if his initiatives succeed and higher court rulings prevail, he could continue to gain popular support. But Mr. Trump can’t impose foreign policy simply by executive orders or Supreme Court rulings. His foreign initiatives are much more complicated, and the opposition to them is more unreliably understood, negotiated, and resolve

Herald Boas is an AMAC Newsline contributor.