Blog

It has been a ‘wild week’ for US foreign policy – even for this President.

Experts provided geopolitical analyses on the Trump administration foreign policy plans from: the Munich Security Conference, US actions toward Iran, Gaza, US-Europe relations, and more. Let me touch on just some of these issues for this week’s Post.

But before I go there, I thought I’d ‘correct’ the G20 schedule for finance ministers and central bank governors that I described in my recent EAF Post, “Trump tactics put G20 cohesion to the test”. After a release from the US Treasury Department, it appears that the US is going to piggyback off the Spring and Fall meetings of the international Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank Group (WBG) as well as holding a gathering in Asheville, North Carolina before the G20 Summit on December 14-15th:

The current schedule of in-person G20 Finance Track 2026 meetings, according to the US Treasury Department are:

• April 16 (Washington, DC): Finance ministers and central bank governors meeting.

• August 29-30 (Asheville, North Carolina): Finance and central bank deputies meeting.

• August 31 – September 1 (Asheville, North Carolina): Finance ministers and central bank governors meeting.

• October 15 (Bangkok, Thailand): Finance ministers and central bank governors meeting.”

Now, let me just touch on a couple of foreign policy issues waded into by President Trump just this past week. Obviously, the most threatening issue is Donald Trump’s Iran actions. As reported a significant US naval armada has been directed by the President to position itself off Iran. As described at WPR:

“All of this comes as Trump has ordered the biggest build-up of military assets in and around the region since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. U.S. officials are warning that, unlike the limited U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities that Trump ordered last summer in coordination with Israel, a new wave of attacks could spark a conflict that lasts for weeks.”

It is fairly evident that Trump has expanded his goals to not just end Iran’s nuclear program but additionally to limit Iran’s ballistic missile program and end support for proxies in the region :

“What Trump is contemplating now is something entirely different. After all, if this was only about Iran’s nuclear program, there would be no need to assemble this much firepower—especially not after last year’s strikes “obliterated” the Islamic Republic’s ability to acquire a nuclear weapon, as Trump claimed. The U.S. now appears to have broadened the scope to include Iran’s ballistic missile programs and its capacity to support proxy groups overseas.”

Dan Drezner at Drezner’s World, in a post titled, “So Is Trump Gonna Bomb Iran Again?”, among numerous others, has called into question the Trump threats and actions that appears to be headed for serious military action in the region – and this from a person that criticized other presidents for their reliance on force against US adversires:

“A sustained bombing campaign of Iran seems like a stupid idea that has not been vetted or discussed in public enough for Trump to do it.² But he’s taken risky actions before and emerged unscathed. Maybe he’s just trying to convince the Iranians that he’s just crazy enough to do it. The problem is that he is dumb enough and unconstrained enough to do it.”

Yes, it is one thing if it just crazy talk to achieve possibly at least a tactical resolution over the Iranian nuclear program and just possibly restrain a missile program or Iran’s support for proxies, but quite another if it lands the US and the region in a prolonged and deadly regional conflict.

Then there is the ‘jawing’ that Trump expressed for the first gathering of his ‘Board of Peace’ . As described by David Sanger of the NYTimes’s:

“Trump described the Board of Peace as an institution that would “strengthen up the United Nations,” perhaps answering those who questioned whether he was trying to set up a competitor to the U.N. But he also described the Board as a group that is “going to almost be looking over the United Nations and making sure it runs properly.””

As noted by Abigail Hauslohner in her description of the Board and its proposed actions in the FT:

“The board was conceived to oversee the ceasefire in Gaza, but US officials have suggested it could rival the UN while the White House has promoted it as the answer to decades of conflict in the Middle East.”

“Trump has cast the board as a collective guarantor of Gaza’s redevelopment after he brokered an October ceasefire to end two years of fighting between Israel and Hamas.”

“But the concept has drawn fire for its broad exclusion of Palestinians and its failure to address critical issues such as Israel’s continued occupation, bombardment and blockade of Gaza and a clear plan to disarm the militant group Hamas.”

There are many unanswered questions not least the question raised by Trump himself in pledging, apparently, $10 billion from the US and apparent additional pledges from others that attended. Again from the FT:

“Donald Trump on Thursday said the US would commit $10bn to his Board of Peace as he inaugurated the controversial body at a meeting where many traditional US allies were absent.”

“The US president also claimed Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Morocco, Bahrain, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Kuwait had committed $7bn more for Gaza relief.”

It is jaw-dropping that none of the traditional US allies, Canada, Australia, or from Europe and Asia have joined this Board. Again, it would appear that the initiative is ill thought out and adds to Trump’s ‘wild initiatives’.

And, finally, there was the ‘wild’ views from American leaders in the now concluded annual Munich Security Conference. Though there was notable relief expressed at the gathering following Secretary of State’s Marco Rubio speech, a standing ovation in fact from some in attendance, the wide division between European allies and the United States has not disappeared as reflected by the Economist:

“As a strategy for managing allies, the message “You’re on your own, suckers, but do as America tells you”, has a number of flaws.”

“Mr Rubio addressed the Munich Security Conference, an annual gathering for political leaders, generals and spy chiefs. He earned a standing ovation for nodding to historic bonds between America and Europe. Mr Rubio’s speech was well-marinated in MAGA values.”

“He urged Europe to protect its Christian heritage and avoid “civilisational erasure” by curbing mass migration. He dismissed those concerned about climate change as beholden to a “cult”.”

Still the divisions remain:

“This columnist was in Munich and heard the private responses of national leaders and officials from Europe and beyond. They did not buy Trumpworld’s messages of reassurance. Trust is a big problem. Something broke inside the transatlantic alliance when Mr Trump declared in January that he needs to own the vast, Danish-governed island of Greenland as payback for America’s longtime defence of Europe.”

“The Trump administration’s muddled logic is another concern. America is pushing allies to take responsibility for conventional defence and the deterrence of Russia, including by investing in long-range weapons and the kit needed to project power far from home. In Munich Mr Colby talked of restoring a culture of burden-sharing that operated during the cold war, when many European allies spent hefty sums on defence.”

As my good colleague, Thomas Wright, returned to Brookings after a stint taht the NSC wrote in The Atlantic:

“Meanwhile, Trump officials have seemed keen to alienate the EU and dismiss the “rules-based order” as nothing more than “cloud castle abstractions,” despite the fact that these are the very allies and ideals that the U.S. needs to compete with China and contain Russia.” …

“By devoting his speech to the perceived shortcomings of America’s friends instead of the threats posed by the country’s adversaries, Rubio revealed not only the Trump administration’s flawed diagnosis of this geopolitical moment but its dangerously naive strategy for managing what is becoming—thanks largely to Trump—a treacherously multipolar world.”

There is more, of course, but this certainly provides more than a taste of the ‘wild week’ in Trump foreign policy.