Trump's foreign policy: an evaluation

 

Donald Trump's foreign policy is often described as "unpredictable" or "unconventional."

My perspective is as follows:
1- Despite the common portrayal of Trump as unpredictable, he often openly and directly states his intentions. One can discern the trajectory of his policies by closely following his public speeches.
2- Trump is a pragmatist. He employs well-established foreign policy tools in international relations, such as threatening the use of force to achieve strategic gains. When a particular tool proves ineffective, he is willing to replace it, judging it by its utility in achieving his objectives, particularly when the costs begin to outweigh the benefits.
3- He is hyper-populist, consistently addressing his political base in ways that resonate with their preferences, even if doing so sometimes contradicts traditional diplomatic norms.

What Sets Trump Apart:
- A high degree of bluntness and a departure from conventional diplomatic language. For example, he openly criticized NATO allies and was willing to withdraw U.S. commitments unless financial contributions were made.
- Unlike most political leaders who conceal controversial intentions, Trump often articulates them publicly. For instance, he explicitly discussed the idea of displacing Palestinians from Gaza.
Biden, in contrast, played a significant role in supporting the Israeli war on Gaza, yet claimed to oppose it.
Though never implemented, his proposals to purchase Greenland or even annex Canada reflect a political style aimed at testing public and international reactions. While such statements may appear symbolic or provocative, past leaders such as George W. Bush undertook actual policies like the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Conclusion:
Donald Trump's foreign policy is not random or erratic; rather, it can be understood within a pragmatic and populist framework that favors directness, conventional leverage tactics, and a readiness to defy diplomatic conventions in pursuit of defined objectives.

Ahmed al-Sharaa's Visit to France

  Footage from Macron and al-Sharaa's joint press conference revealed noticeable tension in their body language.

Macron appeared uneasy, especially following the intense criticism from the French opposition.
- Macron faced sharp criticism after welcoming al-Sharaa, with some opposition members alleging that it was "trampling on the blood of the victims."
This sentiment stemmed from al-Sharaa's association with groups classified as terrorist organizations, as well as reports of massacres targeting Alawites and Druze on the Syrian coast and in Jaramana, attributed to Syrian armed groups.
---
Legal and Ethical Issues:
- Although there was no official protocol indicating that al-Sharaa was a "distinguished guest of honor," the fact remains that the French president hosted a "transitional president of Syria" who lacks widespread international recognition of his legitimacy.
- Al-Sharaa is still listed on international terrorism watchlists due to his leadership role in a group classified as a terrorist organization under a UN resolution, making his visit to France a violation of the country's legal commitment to counterterrorism efforts.
Notably, Al-Sharaa had been granted an exemption by the UN to travel to Paris despite remaining on the terrorism list.
- French media outlets like Le Monde criticized the contradiction between France's human rights ideals and its decision to host al-Sharaa, remarking, "A necktie does not change the crimes of the past."
---
French Interests in Hosting al-Sharaa:
A. France seeks a role in the Middle East, particularly in Syria, to establish a sphere of influence and connect Europe with Syria, especially after Germany has already engaged with the new rulers in Syria.
B. Once sanctions are lifted, France aims for its companies to participate in Syria's reconstruction. The new Syrian government has granted CMA CGM, a French company, a contract worth 230 million euros to develop the port of Latakia.
C. France is also looking to strengthen its influence in Lebanon by discussing border issues and contentious matters between Lebanon and Syria, which were already addressed by Saudi Arabia, hosting bilateral meetings.
D. France aspires to play a role, in cooperation with Gulf countries, that could balance Turkish influence in Syria.
x

A U.S.-Houthi (Yemeni) Agreement to Halt Mutual Attacks

 

What do we know?
- It is limited to the U.S. and the Houthis only.
- Israel is not part of this agreement and was not informed about it. When asked about ongoing Houthi attacks on Israel, Trump responded: "I will look into that when it happens."
- The Houthis announced that they will continue supporting Gaza and will not stop their attacks on Israel.

What could have led to this unexpected agreement?

1)Yemen remains the last active part of Iran's "forward defense" strategy. It is the only remaining regional threat to the United States from Iran's allies (according to the U.S. annual threat assessment).
→ Therefore, progress in U.S.-Iran nuclear negotiations requires addressing related issues like Yemen, as a goodwill gesture and to remove non-nuclear complications from the talks.
2) Unlike the past deal, any new nuclear agreement should raise concerns among key U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states. The Yemeni threat is part of broader Gulf national security concerns and needs to be addressed.
3) A tweet by the U.S. Secretary of Defense referring to the "Houthi-Yemeni attacks and threatening Iran" before the (postponed) fourth round of negotiations suggests this issue is significant for both sides.
Its inclusion will complicate the talks, while resolving it would likely ease the coming negotiations.

4) The U.S. has incurred heavy costs since launching its latest campaign against the Houthis in March. Despite this, it failed to fully dismantle Houthi capabilities. These financial losses do matter for Trump.

--- According to (online) reports, U.S. losses are estimated at around $1 billion, including:
- Use of hundreds of expensive missiles, such as long-range cruise missiles (JASSM), GPS-guided bombs (JSOW), and Tomahawk missiles, each costing $2–4 million.
- Deployment of B-2 bombers from Diego Garcia, a carrier strike group, several fighter jet squadrons, and air defense systems in the U.S. Central Command area.
- Loss of 16 MQ-9 Reaper drones, valued between $30–100 million each, and two fighter jets (one destroyed by friendly fire, the other lost at sea during recovery operations).

Evaluating the US Conditions from an Iranian Perspective

 

President Trump's recent statements regarding Iran's nuclear program, along with the sidelining of hardliners from the negotiations, indicate that he still appears, at least for now, convinced of the importance of a peaceful path.

However, some American demands introduced during the negotiations with Iran remain highly ambitious.

According to leaked details, these demands include the following:
1- A complete halt to uranium enrichment in Iran, with the country importing all required uranium for its nuclear program from abroad, with Russian guarantees for supply.
2- The removal of enriched uranium exceeding 3.67% from Iran, either by transferring it to Russia or diluting it and converting it into nuclear rods that cannot be used for weaponization.
3- Allowing American inspectors to inspect suspicious Iranian nuclear facilities.
4- Permitting American companies to invest in Iranian nuclear projects to enable the United States to oversee the program.
5- Unlike the previous nuclear deal, a new agreement has no expiration date.
6- Granting American inspectors access to certain Iranian military sites, to verify that Iran is not developing long-range missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
****
Below is a breakdown of Iran's red lines, conditions subject to negotiation in exchange for benefits, and what Iran may be willing to accept:

1. Iran's Red Lines:
- Iran will ultimately refuse the inspection of its military facilities, or even discuss that possibility. This is considered a sovereign matter tied to national security and the protection of sensitive military secrets.

Iran will not accept dismantling its nuclear program or relinquishing its nuclear expertise, as it regards this knowledge as a legitimate right under international law.

2. Issues Open to Negotiation:

Iran may allow American inspectors to participate as part of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspection teams, but not as independent American inspection teams. This distinction is important for Iran's sovereignty and international image.

Exporting enriched uranium above 3.67%: Iran may negotiate on this issue in exchange for tangible benefits and guarantees from the US, such as lifting sanctions or securing a binding commitment to remain in the agreement.

3. Conditions Iran Is Willing to Accept:

- Granting American companies several investment opportunities in nuclear power plant construction.
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated, "Iran has plans to build 19 new nuclear power plants, and the United States is welcome to participate in any of these projects."

- An agreement without a time limit: Iran may not object to a deal without a fixed duration as long as the final agreement serves Iran's Long-Term interests and ensures the lifting of sanctions.