During the Cold War, Republicans embraced foreign policy consensus. They recognized the Soviet Union was evil. They, without question, supported Israel’s security against the existential threats the world’s only Jewish state faced. Successive Republican leaders, alongside many Democratic colleagues, understood that the world was safest, freest, and most prosperous when America led.
They also recognized that leadership was not only rhetorical but also material. Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican who served as president during the first decade of the 20th century, famously advised, “Speak softly and carry a big stick. You will go far.” Republicans long understood that diplomacy and influence suffered without corollary investment in military power.
Over recent decades, such consensus has fractured. True, Republicans still stand in support of Israel, even as Democrats embrace the genocide and apartheid slander and boycott Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress. The lasting foreign policy legacy of the first Trump administration was solidifying recognition that China was an adversary, not a partner, as many George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and Obama administration alumni insisted.
Few Republicans, and even fewer in former President Donald Trump’s orbit, accept the Biden administration calculus that Iran’s reformers are sincere or lifting sanctions on Tehran will moderate the regime. Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) may have appeared at the Quincy Institute, a neo-isolationist forum funded by donors and foundations opposed to sanctions on Iran and China, but there is no evidence his appearance represented a commitment to Tehran’s or Beijing’s cause rather than a new senator’s desire to appear anywhere that might offer him a platform.
Should Trump return, “maximum pressure” will be the order of the day. The Iranians and their proxies in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, and Yemen likely have no idea the amount of pain they may soon feel. Indeed, while the career bureaucrats at the State Department, CIA, and Treasury Department may seek to delay the implementation of sanctions, they will not succeed.
The two biggest differences between Trump versions 1.0 and 2.0 are that it will not take as long to vet and give security clearance to Trump’s trusted advisers who have already been through the process, and once in government, they will hit the ground running with little need to learn how to shepherd policy through a recalcitrant bureaucracy.
The real fault lines among Republicans will be policy not only in Ukraine but also in Turkey. Among Trump advisers, several concerns underscore unease with current Ukraine policy. Some exculpate Russia by arguing that NATO expansion pushed Russian President Vladimir Putin to act. Putin’s own speeches denying Ukraine’s historic right to exist, however, belie this rationalization.
Others, such as former Defense Department official Elbridge Colby, argue that supporting Ukraine distracts from the greater threat China poses. This assumes U.S. national security requires an either-or decision or that the same Republicans who stand down for Ukraine would stand up for Taiwan.
Still, others, Vance among them, worry that Ukrainian corruption undercuts the fight. Vance’s views are more nuanced than his critics suggest, though, as he is engaged in workarounds that increase tracking and accountability. Still, others recognize that Ukraine’s fight is about more than Ukraine. Putin’s ambitions will not end with Kyiv. If Ukraine can beat Russia without a single American death, that is a huge positive for Washington.
Turkey may not receive the same attention as Ukraine, but it is as important an indicator of where Republicans stand. Turkey often seeks to make end runs around systems to promote its interest through individuals. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s first national security adviser, resigned after exposure of a corrupt Turkish scheme to use him to turn American policy against Turkish dissidents.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan sought to avoid the Pentagon by calling Trump directly to convince him to abandon Syrian Kurds who partnered with American forces against the Islamic State. Turkey and Azerbaijan seemingly corrupt think tanks not with direct donations but rather by offering business contracts to their donors or remunerating scholars who serve on cut-outs’ boards. With Turkey today sponsoring Hamas and demonizing Israel, any Republican embrace of Turkey would essentially enable Islamist terrorism.
During his previous term, Turkey sought to deceive Trump and corrupt his team. His team should not make the same mistake twice.
Michael Rubin is director of policy analysis at the Middle East Forum and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
