President Trump has been executing a foreign policy, a clear doctrine of sorts, where national security is achieved by leveraging U.S. economic power. It is a fundamental shift in approaching both allies and adversaries; summarized within the oft repeated phrase: “economic security is national security.”
The Trump Doctrine of using economics to achieve national security objectives is a fundamental paradigm shift. Modern U.S. history provides no easy reference.
“Peace is the prize” ~ President Donald Trump
The nature of the Trump foreign policy doctrine, as it has become visible, is to hold manipulative influence agents accountable for regional impact(s); and simultaneously work to stop any corrupted influence from oppressing free expression of national values held by the subservient, dis-empowered, people within the nation being influenced.
There have been clear examples of this doctrine at work. When President Trump first visited the Middle-East he confronted the international audience with a message about dealing with extremist influence agents. President Trump simply said: “drive them out.”
Toward that end, as Qatar was identified as a financier of extremist ideology, President Trump placed the goal of confrontation upon the Gulf Cooperation Council, not the U.S.
The U.S. role was clearly outlined as supporting the confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates needed to confront the toxic regional influence; the U.S. would support their objective. That’s what happened.
Another example: To confront the extremism creating the turmoil in Afghanistan, President Trump placed the burden of bringing the Taliban to the table of governance upon primary influence agent Pakistan. Here again, with U.S. support. Pakistan is the leading influence agent over the Taliban in Afghanistan; the Trump administration correctly established the responsibility and gives clear expectations for U.S. support.
If Pakistan doesn’t change their influence objective toward a more constructive alignment with a nationally representative Afghanistan government, it is Pakistan who will be held accountable. Again, the correct and effective appropriation of responsibility upon the influence agent who can initiate the solution, Pakistan.
The process of accurate regional assignment of influence comes with disconcerting sunlight. Often these influences are not discussed openly. However, for President Trump the lack of honesty is only a crutch to continue enabling poor actors. This is a consistent theme throughout all of President Trump’s foreign policy engagements.
The European Union is a collective co-dependent enabler to the corrupt influences of Iran. Therefore the assignment of responsibility to change the status is placed upon the EU.
The U.S. will fully support the EU effort, but as seen in the withdrawal from the Iran Deal, the U.S. will not enable growth of toxic behavior. The U.S. stands with the people of Iran, but the U.S. will not support the enabling of Iranian oppression, terrorism and/or dangerous military expansion that will ultimately destabilize the region. Trump holds the EU accountable for influencing change. Again, we see the Trump Doctrine at work.
Perhaps the most obvious application of the Trump Doctrine is found in how the U.S. administration approached the challenging behavior of North Korea. Rather than continuing a decades-long policy of ignoring the influence of China, President Trump directly assigned primary responsibility for a reset to Beijing.
China held, and holds, all influence upon North Korea and has long-treated the DPRK as a proxy province to do the bidding of Beijing’s communist old guard. By directly confronting the influence agent, and admitting openly for the world to see (albeit with jaw-dropping tactical sanction diplomacy) President Trump positioned the U.S. to support a peace objective on the entire Korean peninsula and simultaneously forced China to openly display their closely-guarded influence.
While the Red Dragon -vs- Panda influence dynamic is still ongoing, the benefit of this new and strategic approach has brought the possibility of peace closer than ever in recent history.
No longer is it outlandish to think of North Korea joining with the rest of the world in achieving a better quality of life for its people.
Not only is President Trump openly sharing a willingness to engage in a new and dynamic future for North Korea, but his approach is removing the toxic influences that have held down the possibility for generations. By leveraging China (through economics) to stop manipulating North Korea, President Trump is opening up a door of possibilities for the North Korean people. This is what I mean when I say Trump is providing North Korea with an opportunity to create an authentic version of itself.
What ultimately comes from the opportunity President Trump has constructed is entirely unknown. However, the opportunity itself is stunning progress creating a reasonable pathway to prosperity for the North Korean people. Chairman Kim Jong-un has the opportunity to be the most trans-formative leader within Asia in generations; but it is still only an ‘opportunity’.
Whether Kim Jong-un can embrace openness, free markets and prosperity is yet to be seen. Freedom is a precariously scary endeavor because there’s always a danger loosening the grip on control can lead to fear, which can lead to even tighter more authoritarian, control.
♦The commonality in these foreign policy engagements is the strategic placement of responsibility upon the primary influence agent; and a clear understanding upon those nation(s) of influence, that all forward efforts must ultimately provide positive results for people impacted who lack the ability to create positive influence themselves.
One of the reasons President Trump is able to take this approach is specifically because he is beholden to no outside influence himself. It is only from the position of complete independence that accurate assignments based on the underlying truth can be made; and that takes us to the ultimate confrontations – the trillion dollar confrontations.
A U.S. foreign policy that provides the opportunity for fully-realized national authenticity is a paradigm shift amid a world that has grown accustomed to corrupt globalists, bankers and financial elites who have established a business model by dictating terms to national leaders they control and influence. We have our own frame of reference with K-Street lobbyists in Washington DC. Much of President Trump’s global trade reset is based on confronting these multinational influence agents.
Compare Trump’s foreign policy to Hillary’s; send Blumenthal to scout economic opportunities in Libya for THEM and then destroy their government.
Trump rebuilds our economy AND military and offers bad actors like N. Korea an option; you can either be vaporized by us or you can become a trade partner and grow your country exponentially. Tough choice.
What were the Russians THINKING when they installed Trump as President?!? They would have been FAR better off with someone that could be easily bought… like Hillary.
Uh…say what? This is complete gobbledygook.
@Greg: Translation, you like that big fat American check, be a shame if it didnt show up in the mail, a real shame. See those terrorists over there, I dont like them, you dont like them either, right. I didn’t think so, cause all your pals, that you trade with they like their big fat American checks too.
You be a good little tyrant dictator and there could be lots of goodies in it for you.
Its much like raising kids, reward only good behavior and punish bad behavior.
I guess that interpretation would make Donald a manipulative influence agent.
@Greg: Yes true, but its better than sending in troops, lobbing bombs or sending in drones.
@Greg:
Either English is the author’s second language, or drugs are somehow involved. I saw the same effect in a chemical plant employee once. She appeared on the surface to be respectably articulate, but when you actually paid attention to her fluid diction, it made no sense. The grammar seemed almost correct, but the words fit wrong. The result was chaos.
@kitt: Or enabling radical Islamic regimes to develop nuclear weapons as we pay them.
@Deplorable Me:
You do understand that Russia has both the capacity and the incentive to train, supply and arm with nuclear weapons whomever it wishes, right? Both the United States and Russia have long played fast and loose with their respective nuclear assets. (You don’t REALLY believe that the dozen and a half countries who have or have had nuclear weapons all developed them independently. That would imply one heck of a lot of independent Manhattan Projects! And every one of them a success Unbelievable!)
OK, let’s talk about Iran (your choice.) You KNOW that we’ve done what we could, done everything short of actually bombing them. None of it mortally wounds them, because they abut Russia via the Black Sea, a navigable body of water that we have no business policing. Anything we knock out Russia can resupply. And the money they got from us was already their money, not ours. Holding on to it would eventually have amounted to war. We didn’t “enable” Iran, Russia did.
@George Wells: Are you sure it wasn’t China or Pakistan?
Iran said the amount was 2 billion, You might not remember In 2016, the US Supreme Court ruled Iran must give the cash to American survivors and relatives of victims of attacks, including the 1983 bombing of US Marine barracks in Beirut.
We owed Iran exactly NOTHING zip zero ziltch. What 130 billion jackpot lottery they got huh.
Barry ignored the ruling the American survivors got nothing.
@George Wells: No, I don’t believe the US has armed any other nation with nuclear weapons. It only took the Soviet Union 4 years to develop a weapon after we detonated our first. It’s not that hard, especially with people within the scientific community willing to provide stolen data.
Obama suppressed every effort or support to exert pressure on Iran. The US could have supported the popular uprising against their mock election and held Israel back from taking out Iran’s facilities when it could. Yes, Russia is a bad player in this, along with the EU and the UN.
Iran also owes damages to the hostages they held, so we should have held onto that money until they paid. Criminal regimes, those who take hostages (a Muslim staple) don’t get equal treatment until they atone for their crimes.
@Deplorable Me:
Experts say Israel has between 40 and 100 nuclear warheads. If they have the manufacturing capacity to make those warheads themselves, why haven’t Israel’s enemies taken out those facilities instead of just lobbing missiles into the Golan Heights? Would mighty Iran tolerate Israel’s DEVELOPMENT of a nuclear capability that would undoubtedly be aimed at any state dedicated to its destruction? Like Iran? Logic suggests otherwise. Logic also suggests that we have helped Israel in ways we do not divulge. Israel plays its nuclear cards close to the vest, and we play ours closer when it comes to how Israel went nuclear. They’ve done no tests. None. Either they got nuclear from us, or they are bluffing. I doubt the latter.
@George Wells:
Where is it?
Who knew what Israel had until they had it?
Israel has been surrounded by enemies on three sides. They could have been swamped and overcome at any time by OUR enemies. Why would be provide them with nuclear weapons that could easily fall into the hands of clients of the Soviet Union?
Tests aren’t necessary. The technology is proven. It would depend on where you got the instructions. However, the QUESTION of whether or not Israel has nukes keeps the peace. Jews have experience with existential events; they aren’t going to be marched off to boxcars or camps again. Only Iran, willing to accept the risk of a nuclear exchange and survive, is a danger.
And Obama funded them.
@Deplorable Me:
Well, I think that was MY point. We know where North Korea’s underground nuclear facilities are, where their launch sites, and so on and on. Iran may not have the satellite capability of sleuthing out the production details of Israel’s nuclear program, but Russia certainly does, and would have no reason NOT to share that information with the Ayatollah, if such actually existed.
Once nuclearized, Israel COULDN’T be beat. They have enough nukes to crush ALL of their enemies. And judging by the results of the ’67 war, it wouldn’t even take that many of the nukes. Six days, indeed!
The better question might be: Why hasn’t Russia lump-sum nuclearized Iran? Was it simply more profitable for them to supply Iran with the technical expertise (“advisors”) plus the “raw” materials plus the parts and design plans and let Iran do with them all what they could?
@George Wells:
Why don’t I loan one of my handguns to a drunk off the street? Iran is a good ally for Russia in the region, but handing them nuclear weapons? How could Russia rely on Iran to act responsibly? Russia may support evil but they aren’t stupid. Russia surely showed more wisdom in dealing with Iran than Obama did.
@Deplorable Me:
If your premise is correct, then Russia’s totalitarian model of government is fundamentally smarter, safer and more effective than our Democratic Republican model of voter-elected government. That’s rather disquieting.
How can WE rely on Israel to act responsibly? We can’t. Yet we did nothing to stop them from going nuclear OR helped them get OR gave them that capability.
Who is the more culpable?
@George Wells:
No, smarter that OBAMA. He was hardly a representative of our democratic republic.
When has Israel expressed a wish to conquer other nations or wipe any other countries off the map?
@Deplorable Me:
No, legally he was.
Whenever it was attacked. Israel still has not returned all of the land it overtook during the “Six-Day War.”
Rhetoric is one thing. Acting on violent rhetoric is another thing altogether. The bluster and saber-rattling we recently got a taste of between Trump and Kim Yong Un expressed many violent threats, as Iran has often done. But look where Trump is today. Obama believed that he would find Iran in the same position North Korea is today. That STILL doesn’t mean that North Korea will give up its nuclear ambitions. But Trump is trying, and so did Obama. Time will tell if their outcomes are the same, or different.
@George Wells:
Legally, sadly yes. Effectively, no.
There is no reason they should.
Hmm… there is another article about a guy named Hasson. Violent rhetoric, preemptive action to prevent violence as opposed to giving him money to buy more ammunititon. Recognized as common sense by all.
Indeed, the threats were taken seriously because they WERE serious. And, indeed, look where we are. When Kim insisted on sanctions being raised for only a portion of what Trump demands, Trump walks away. He is not giving up the reward before the price is paid, the exact opposite of what Obama did. Do you think Trump wants a deal with N. Korea (or needs one) any less than Obama wanted and needed his Iran deal? Yet, Trump is willing to walk away from it unless the agreement serves the needs of the world. Obama only though about his personal aggrandizement.
They all did not develop it children, Julius and Ethel Rosenberg Execution – HISTORY
Our technology was stolen.
China did not leap light years and suddenly come up with stealth technology in their aircraft and planes that look nearly identical to ours.
The lack of effective cyber security in our government is astounding.
@kitt:
Thank you!
Right and right again.
You see that I can and do give credit where credit is due.
Either this liberal democrat (your label, not mine) is right at least some of the time, or you’re wrong about me, proving that you are NOT right all of the time. Take your pick.
@Deplorable Me:
Glad you agree.
Well, that sort of shuts down your contention that Israel had no designs on anyone else’s territory.
Hasson went beyond rhetoric. He planned. He procured the necessary weaponry to initiate his plan. His published intent was enough to gain him the attention of the authorities, but when he transitioned from speech to action, that provoked the response he got. That’s the difference. I guess you missed it.
@George Wells:
No it doesn’t. The areas Israel holds on to are strategic to their defense. They did not launch attacks to capture territory, they won territory in defeating aggressors. Lesson? Don’t attack Israel. They have also proved willing to trade territory back for security assurances, but those usually don’t result in the Palestinians honoring the agreements.
Iran developing nuclear weapons and funding terrorism goes beyond rhetoric, also. I think you IGNORE the similarities.
@Deplorable Me:
Yes, Iran’s behavior goes beyond rhetoric. I never implied that it did not. My point WAS that Israel did the same thing with respect to EITHER developing bombs OR getting same from the US. Either way, that ALSO went beyond rhetoric, and as such was certainly sufficient provocation for Iran to begin a nuclear weapons development program. I think you ignore THOSE similarities.
An arms race is an arms race, whether between the USA and Russia, India and Pakistan, or Israel and Iran. Every time another nation goes nuclear, the “nuclear clock” ticks closer to 12.
Sooner or later, nuclear war is inevitable.
@George Wells: Israel’s rhetoric is quite different. Their message is to leave them alone, or else rather than “I don’t like those guys over there, I’m going to wipe them off the map.”
Yes, no one likes an arms race, but Obama initiated one when he failed to stand fast against Iran developing their nuclear weapons. It’s not only Israel that sees that as a threat.
Looks like Trump is done for a while with lil Kim, guess he forgot the pallets of cash Kim is use to when dealing with the US.
He did show Kim his secret arsenal isnt a secret.
All sanctions ect same as before, Trump gave up nothing, got nothing, its a wash.
@kitt: It will take a while for the world to learn that Trump is not the spineless pushover Obama was. Trump shows the consequences of opposing him and the vast rewards of cooperating with him. Those who realize this and take it seriously will benefit. In the end, the world will be a safer place.
@Deplorable Me: The rocket testing has stopped but, whats with the news black out on Pakistan /India pissin contest?
https://halturnerradioshow.com/index.php/en/news-page/world/pakistan-moves-t-e-l-s-from-storage-nuclear-tipped-shaheen-iii-missiles
The cloud of an exchange would reach the east coast in 72 hours.
@kitt: No blackout, the liberal media simply can’t cover Cohen’s carpet bombing “bombshells” of thermonuclear nothing AND cover actual news that affects the world. You know… priorities.
@Deplorable Me: The disgusting part is people asking which side would be favored like choosing sides. ITS A NUCLEAR EXCHANGE …MORONS THE FALL OUT WONT MAGICALLY STAY WITHIN THEIR BORDERS.
Makes one wonder about IQs/education.
@Deplorable Me:
How can you say that Obama INITIATED it when Iran was already committed to it as a solution to Israel’s superior conventional force AND its nuclear arsenal. Iran INITIATED its own nuclear program (or maybe Russia did.)
And why was its Obama’s duty to stop it. I thought Trump didn’t WANT the US to be the World’s police. We didn’t stop India or Pakistan. (And no, there wasn’t a news blackout. I caught it today on TV.) So now Kitt is worried about Ind./Pak. radiation reaching the East Coast in 72 hours. We coaxed the nuclear genie out of the bottle, but if we hadn’t, someone else would have. Pandora’s box is open and won’t be closed, and we can’t afford AND are unwilling to police the World, so we will reap what mankind sowed.
And by the way, Kitt called attention to Thorium nuclear power – a truly missed opportunity for the World to get nuclear power without any of the bombs and without most of the pollution. Why did the World miss out? Because unlike with uranium, you CAN’T make bombs with its byproducts. The World WANTS nukes. The WORLD will get what it deserves.
@George Wells: Because when he started an arms race when he gave Iran the open door to developing their weapon. Apparently, no nations in the region viewed Israel as a threat because they haven’t sought their own nuclear weapons until Iran started trying to acquire them.
Because he was the President of the United States of America, the most powerful nation on earth. No other nations view threats to the US or Israel as a problem. Other nations worry more about their trade with Iran rather than eliminating a threat to world peace. Likewise with Iraq; had the UN not valued their bribes from Hussein and Germany, France and Russia valued their trade more than world peace, there would never have been an Iraq war. Obama wanted to let Iran off the hook and add some headlines to his “legacy”. That’s pretty much it.
@George Wells: What needs to happen now is every world power needs to make it very clear the first one to push the button will be shut off from the entire world N.Korea will look like a modern nation in comparison.
With the movement of mid range nukes by Pakistan this isnt amusing anymore. Not so much as a fed ex package would get across the border. India easy to intimidate by American promising the shunning of trade, Pakistan the country that sheltered Osama, allowed terrorists to freely cross its border to escape our troops might need more pressure.
@kitt:
I give YOU credit for seeing where the real nuclear threat to World Peace lays today. Despicable Me is stuck on Obama like he is stuck on Hillary, and both are DEAD ISSUES! D.Me can’t turn of his loop recording, so his message just keeps repeating.
As if making the point again would make any difference, Obama didn’t START a Middle East arms race, he enabled it to continue. And I’m sorry, but we are NOT the most powerful nation on Earth. China has a stronger and more robust economy, and Russia, by virtue of having not honored the provisions of numerous arms agreements, now has more numbers of more powerful and faster nukes that we have no defense against. It takes a lot of effort to find a military metric where we are ahead. No, we are not the “most powerful,” and certainly not the World’s policeman. And the next time a president tries to be one, watch his party’s popularity trend to zero.
India and Pakistan BOTH have way too many people and seem desperate to shed some population. A nuclear weapon exchange would alleviate some of their population pressure but would NOT settle the Kashmir dispute. Border pissing contests never go away.
@George Wells:
Unless I am wrong, YOU have concentrated on defending Obama’s legacy and that is why we have discussed Obama’s disastrous Iranian failure. Sure, other nations have nuclear weapons; what do you want, a WAR to take them away? It would be responsible to try to make others, especially known radical Islamic terrorists who have vowed to wipe out other nations, NOT have them?
You also seem fascinated with mass extinction events, including the Democrats new overt desire to murder babies. Sort of troubling.
@Deplorable Me: Its an issue with those that have no skin in the game. No children or grandchildren, dont personally have to murder they can just vote in those that will murder for them. They were given an idea they agree with dont want to do the hard lifting or even see the gruesome details of how the “plan” becomes a reality.
He must think a nuclear exchange all the radiation is tame and would stay in the borders of the combatants, It would just hover in the borders, not enter the atmosphere and hit the east coast in 72 hours. Lower the planets temperature with nuclear type winter affect growing seasons lowering food supply. That whole under ground nuke testing thing was just to keep the tests secret. He would get his population reduction thats all that would happen.
If armies want to march on each other and use guns and tanks, and we cant smooth things over thats too bad, but enter in the nukes and its the worlds responsibility to spank the kids and tell them to “fight nice.” You dont let them light fire to the other kids bedroom, its part of the house.
@Deplorable Me:
Well then we can abandon this thread of conversation, because I have repeatedly posted that Obama never lived up to half of the voters’ expectations. Even on gay rights he was reluctant, only “evolving” after Biden beat him to the punch and embarrassed him in the doing. Sure, Europe loved him, but he never translated that into anything useful at home, so “zip.” He did what he THOUGHT was right, but he OVERTHOUGHT everything and OVEREXPLAINED himself too, and so lost his public. And never having ANY of the GOP public, that left him with… “zip” support, and without that, nothing at all gets done. His only significant legacy was the ACA, and that was never quite right, and without true bipartisan support, it could and will never be MADE right.
So, NO, I haven’t “defended” Obama’s “legacy.” In an angry, split country, nobody wins. The public’s fortune spasms alternately left and right as one party or the other takes power. That is nobody’s dream. It’s a living, breathing nightmare.
@Deplorable Me:
I am TROUBLED by the extinctions of many species that we have crowded out or poisoned to death.
Aborted babies are a drop in out population bucket. Humans are in no danger of extinction. Those are FACTS that should not trouble you.
@kitt:
All nonsense. I think nothing of the sort. Radiation and a nuclear winter would decimate our population and do that mass-extinction thing that PARTICULARLY bothers me.
I DO admit to having a fatalistic view of mankind’s prospects for NOT blowing itself to smithereens. You couldn’t have possibly missed that. There are too many angry old men in charge of too many nuclear bombs, and they have almost nothing to lose if they decide to play war with them. They will all cough out their last few melanoma-decorated, ossified-prostate-constricted years complaining about their bowels in government-prepared fallout shelters waiting coldly to declare victory once the missiles are all used up.