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
NPT
Top image credit: Milos Ruzicka via shutterstock.com

We are sleepwalking into nuclear catastrophe

Global Crises

In May of his first year as president, John F. Kennedy met with Israeli President David Ben-Gurion to discuss Israel’s nuclear program and the new nuclear power plant at Dimona.

Writing about the so-called “nuclear summit” in “A State at Any Cost: The Life of David Ben-Gurion,” Israeli historian Tom Segev states that during this meeting, “Ben-Gurion did not get much from the president, who left no doubt that he would not permit Israel to develop nuclear weapons.”

keep readingShow less
Ambassador Robert Hunter
Top photo credit: Former NATO Ambassador Robert Hunter at the American Academy of Diplomacy's 17th Annual Awards Luncheon, 12/14/2006. (Reuters)

RIP Amb. Robert Hunter, who warned about NATO expansion

Europe

The world of foreign policy restraint is poorer today with the passing of Robert Hunter, an American diplomat, who was the U.S. ambassador to NATO in 1993-1998. He also served as a senior official on both the Western Europe and Middle East desks in President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Council.

For decades, Hunter was a prominent, sober, and necessary voice of restraint in Washington. To readers of Responsible Statecraft, he was an occasional author who shared his insights, particularly on Europe. To those of us who knew Robert personally, he was a mentor and a friend whose tremendous knowledge was matched only by his generosity in sharing it.

keep readingShow less
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
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.