Israel, Trump, and the End of the Neoconservative Agenda

In Frontlines, Thought by Allan M. Coleman

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Whether Trump wins or loses, his focus on neutering what has become a foreign policy dedicated to interventionism and regime change maybe the Donald’s lasting accomplishment. No where else has Trump succeeded in proving to various constituents that interventionism is a failed policy of the neo-conservative elite from both parties.

Many Israel observers are wrong when they suggest that an American policy shift away from actively intervening in foreign conflicts will ultimately be bad for Israel.  The assumption is that a non-engaged America leaves Israel without protection.

The truth is quite the opposite. neoconservative is about projecting American power in ways that ensures a lopsided relationship with allies. In 2005, the Bush administration, with neoconservative principles forced Israel to give up the Gaza strip and was intent on using a weak Olmert to pull Jews out of their historic heartland in Judea and Samaria. For the neocons that ran Bush’s adminstration, it was far better a small Israel dependent on the USA than a larger and stronger Israel that could stand on its own two feet.

Although one can blame Obama for much of the chaos in the Middle East, neocons in both parties pushed an agenda of destabilization in order to assert control.  This has backfired and so has interventionism in general.  One, because it does not work and two, because of the steep price tag attached.

Trump may not grasp the finer points of foreign policy.  He doesn’t have to.  Foreign policy is often times just good common sense.  Perhaps the most intelligent thing America can do is stay out of their allies’ business.


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Comments