When three Americans, long held as political prisoners of North Korea, were returned to U.S. soil NBC News headlined its memo on the news of the day with the words, “Prisoner release event highlights the best and worst of Trump.”
The “worst” part was President Trump’s characteristically uncareful speech, letting the word “excellent” slip out of his mouth in describing North Korean leader Kim Jong Un. The “best” part, NBC seems to suggest, was the made-for-TV showmanship of the event.
In truth, the best part was that three men are now free and Kim is increasingly making gestures towards peace. The worst thing about the moment was the inability of so many of Trump’s critics to look for one moment at the substance of his actions rather than his off-putting style.
Trump is not a normal president, but nevertheless he does the same things a normal president does. Among them, he conducts foreign policy. Too many politicians and critics have been unable to address his foreign policy as foreign policy, instead maintaining focus on how much they don’t like him — either his style or his other actions.
This is too bad, not because there is no room to debate Trump’s foreign policy. There obviously is. And talk of a Nobel Peace Prize is, at this early point, nearly as absurd as the actual award of the prize to former President Barack Obama was in his first year in office for doing nothing other than, well, being Obama.
Trump’s foreign policy actions deserve to be discussed and debated on their merits because he is actually doing things, taking policy in a new direction, and the best path to good policy involves good-faith substantive criticism.
Trump’s Korea overtures may be a historic path to peace, or they may be another example of a U.S. leader playing into the hands of the nation’s dictator. Whether Trump’s Korea strategy is prudent is a matter of debate. Whether his course of action will yield peace is as yet unknowable. But you cannot plausibly deny that there is a strategy, and like Bill Clinton’s, George W. Bush’s, and Obama’s strategies, the aim is peace.
The same is true on Iran. Many commentators look at Trump’s exit from the Iran nuclear deal as being a tantrum, rank ideological isolationism, or almost a non policy. In truth, Trump’s Iran policy is a policy that much of the foreign policy establishment happens to disagree with.
It’s notable that Trump didn’t tear up the Iran agreement on Day One. He twice granted waivers on economic sanctions. He delayed withdrawal until 15 months after he took office. And believing it’s a bad deal certainly isn’t some fringe opinion; the reason it isn’t an official treaty is because Obama knew a significant number of senators in his own party would vote against it.
Finally, Trump’s Iran policy is nuanced. He isn’t snapping all the sanctions back immediately, but is instead granting a 6-month grace period. This could give Iran and Europe a chance to improve the deal and give it teeth.
Critics call the pullout “isolationism,” which is absurd. Fealty to a bad treaty can’t be the only alternative to isolationism. As we’ve argued before, Trump is very involved in the rest of the world.
The U.S. won a battle this week in our war against America’s most notorious enemy, Islamic State, that showed how intricately we are working with other governments. We captured five top ISIS officials through a sting coordinated with Iraq’s government. This was a monthslong intricate operation that involved intelligence-sharing and operational coordination.
Nobody has to agree with Trump’s foreign policy actions. There’s room for debate, and there is no guarantee how things will turn out. But he is still doing real, substantive, disruptive, daring, and potentially effective foreign policy. For all his actions, there is a good reasonable case to be made. If critics could get past how Trump makes them feel, we could actually debate what the president is doing.
