Follow us on social

google cta
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
google cta
google cta

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

google cta
Analysis | Washington Politics
NATO Summit 2025
Top photo credit: NATO Summit, the Hague, June 25, 2025. (Republic of Slovenia/Daniel Novakovič/STA/flickr)

Will NATO survive Trump?

Europe

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump threatened to place new punitive tariffs on European allies until they acquiesce to his designs on Greenland, an escalation of his ongoing attempts to acquire the large Arctic island for the United States.

Critics loudly decried the move as devastating for the transatlantic relationship, echoing Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Fredericksen’s earlier warning that a coercive U.S. seizure of the semi-autonomous Danish territory would mean the end of NATO.

keep readingShow less
Tony Blair Gaza
Top photo credit: Britain's former Prime Minister Tony Blair attends a world leaders' summit on ending the Gaza war, amid a U.S.-brokered prisoner-hostage swap and ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, October 13, 2025. REUTERS/Suzanne Plunkett/Pool/File Photo

Phase farce: No way 'Board of Peace' replaces reality in Gaza

Middle East

The Trump administration’s announcements about the Gaza Strip would lead one to believe that implementation of President Trump’s 20-point peace plan, later largely incorporated into a United Nations Security Council resolution, is progressing quite smoothly.

As such, Trump’s special envoy Steve Witkoff announced this month on social media the “launch of Phase Two” of the plan, “moving from ceasefire to demilitarization, technocratic governance, and reconstruction.” But examination of even just a couple of Witkoff’s assertions in his announcement shows that "smooth" or even "implementation" are bitter overstatements.

keep readingShow less
Trump Polk
Top image credit: Samuele Wikipediano 1348 via wikimedia commons/lev radin via shutterstock.com

On Greenland, Trump wants to be like Polk

Washington Politics

Any hopes that Wednesday’s meeting of Greenland and Denmark’s foreign ministers with Vice President Vance and Secretary Rubio might point toward an end of the Trump administration’s attempts to annex the semiautonomous arctic territory were swiftly disappointed. “Fundamental disagreement” remains, according to Danish Foreign Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen.

That these talks would yield no hint of a resolution should not be surprising. Much of Trump’s stated rationale for seeking ownership of Greenland — the need for an increased U.S. military presence, the ability to access the island’s critical mineral deposits, or the alleged imperative to keep the Chinese and Russians at bay — is eminently negotiable and even achievable under the status quo. If these were the president’s real goals he likely could have reached an agreement with Denmark months ago. That this standoff persists is a testament to Trump’s true motive: ownership for its own sake.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.