Follow us on social

Trump really doesn't want to talk about Israel

Trump really doesn't want to talk about Israel

In his billed national security speech, the former president stayed far away from Gaza and the Middle East tinder box

Analysis | Washington Politics

Billed as a national security speech, former President Donald Trump nonetheless took to the stage in North Carolina on Wednesday and offered few specifics about what he would do about the major conflicts roiling the planet under his successor Joe Biden.

This was no more apparent than in his comments about Israel, which were pretty much non-existent.

Here they are in full (emphasis mine):

"We made peace in the Middle East with the Abraham Accords. And more, more, more, we did things like nobody ever heard of and we brought our troops, mostly back home... My attitude kept us out of wars. I stopped wars with phone calls. Russia should have never happened. With Ukraine would have never happened if I were president it would have never happened. Nope, there was no talk of that, it would have never, ever happened. With Putin, would have never happened. And Israel October 7 would have never happened. Iran would have never done that. They had very little money at that point. Now they're rich as hell, but Biden allowed that to happen.

Then shortly after: "Putin would have never gone into Ukraine. Israel would have never been attacked. Sad, sad situation. So many people are dead, so many people are gone. So many cities."


Trump spent the most his time on a past war, Afghanistan — specifically, Biden's ill-fated withdrawal in September 2021: "(The) incompetence of Kamala Harris and crooked Joe Biden delivered the most humiliating event in the history of our country and one of the biggest military disasters in the history of the world. As far as I'm concerned, no one will ever forget the horrifying images of their catastrophic retreat from Afghanistan."

As for Ukraine, a two-year European land war into which the U.S. has poured more than $175 billion: "If we win, I'll get that thing settled before I take the office. I'll get it settled as president-elect. I'll get that war stopped with Russia. Yeah, we'll get that stopped."

This is something he has said before many times, as he has said repeatedly that he's told Israel to "finish it" without expanding on what that means. He said the most on that subject last week when he spoke before Jewish donors in New Jersey, although most his remarks there were about antisemitism. On Israel's war in Gaza, in which more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed, he declared, "I will give Israel the support that it needs to win, but I do want them to win fast, wouldn’t it be nice if they could win fast?” he said. “And we have to let them win fast. We will restore civility and peace to the Middle East.”

If people were looking for a blueprint, a doctrine, or even some guideposts on what Trump would do in a second term on foreign policy and national security, Wednesday's speech was certainly not it. (Trump's running mate JD Vance offered his own overview of a "Trump" approach to world conflict and statesmanship in his introductory remarks, saying at one point it is "one that stands for American interests, and it pursues those interests ruthlessly, but also carefully, with strong words and the strongest military in the world, but with great restraint to balance it out." )

But Wednesday's speech was leagues different from the remarks Trump delivered in 2016 at the Center for the National Interest in which he defined his candidacy as a stark departure from the neoconservatism of his party and said things like "the world must know that we do not go abroad in search of enemies, that we are always happy when old enemies become friends, and when old friends become allies."

Back then, he was reading from a script. Today, he was clearly veering from his prepared remarks, which, at one point, he even referred to on stage. It would have been great to see what was on that teleprompter.


Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks from a bulletproof glass housing during a campaign rally, at the North Carolina Aviation Museum & Hall of Fame in Asheboro, North Carolina, U.S. August 21, 2024. REUTERS/Jonathan Drake

Analysis | Washington Politics
US Marines
Top image credit: U.S. Marines with Force Reconnaissance Platoon, Maritime Raid Force, 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit, prepare to clear a room during a limited scale raid exercise at Sam Hill Airfield, Queensland, Australia, June 21, 2025. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Cpl. Alora Finigan)

Cartels are bad but they're not 'terrorists.' This is mission creep.

Military Industrial Complex

There is a dangerous pattern on display by the Trump administration. The president and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth seem to hold the threat and use of military force as their go-to method of solving America’s problems and asserting state power.

The president’s reported authorization for the Pentagon to use U.S. military warfighting capacity to combat drug cartels — a domain that should remain within the realm of law enforcement — represents a significant escalation. This presents a concerning evolution and has serious implications for civil liberties — especially given the administration’s parallel moves with the deployment of troops to the southern border, the use of federal forces to quell protests in California, and the recent deployment of armed National Guard to the streets of our nation’s capital.

keep readingShow less
Howard Lutnick
Top photo credit: Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick on CNBC, 8/26/25 (CNBC screengrab)

Is nationalizing the defense industry such a bad idea?

Military Industrial Complex

The U.S. arms industry is highly consolidated, specialized, and dependent on government contracts. Indeed, the largest U.S. military contractors are already effectively extensions of the state — and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is right to point that out.

His suggestion in a recent media appearance to partially nationalize the likes of Lockheed Martin is hardly novel. The economist John Kenneth Galbraith argued for the nationalization of the largest military contractors in 1969. More recently, various academics and policy analysts have advocated for partial or full nationalization of military firms in publications including The Nation, The American Conservative, The Middle East Research and Information Project (MERIP), and The Seattle Journal for Social Justice.

keep readingShow less
Modi Trump
Top image credit: White House, February 2025

Trump's India problem could become a Global South crisis

Asia-Pacific

As President Trump’s second term kicked off, all signs pointed to a continued upswing in U.S.-India relations. At a White House press conference in February, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi spoke of his vision to “Make India Great Again” and how the United States under Trump would play a central role. “When it’s MAGA plus MIGA, it becomes a mega partnership for prosperity,” Modi said.

During Trump’s first term, the two populist leaders hosted rallies for each other in their respective countries and cultivated close personal ties. Aside from the Trump-Modi bromance, U.S.-Indian relations have been on a positive trajectory for over two decades, driven in part by mutual suspicion of China. But six months into his second term, Trump has taken several actions that have led to a dramatic downturn in U.S.-India relations, with India-China relations suddenly on the rise.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.