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
Elbridge Colby
Top image credit: Elbridge Colby is seen at Senate Committee on Armed Services Hearings to examine his nomination to be Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Dirksen Senate office building in Washington, DC, on Tuesday, March 4, 2025. (Photo by Mattie Neretin/Sipa USA).

Elbridge Colby: I won't be 'cavalier' with U.S. forces

QiOSK

In his senate confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Elbridge Colby, nominee for Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, stood out as one of the few people auditioning for a Pentagon job who say they may want to deploy fewer U.S. troops across the globe, not more.

“If we’re going to put American forces into action, we’re gonna have a clear goal. It’s going to have a clear exit strategy when plausible,” he told the Senate Armed Services Committee.

keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top image credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Ukraine aid freeze: Trump's diplomatic tightrope path to peace

Europe

Transatlanticism’s sternest critics all too often fail to reckon with the paradox that this ideology has commanded fervent devotion since the mid-20th century not because it correctly reflects the substance of U.S.-European relations or U.S. grand strategy but precisely because it exists in a permanent state of unreality.

We were told that America’s alliances have “never been stronger” even as the Ukraine war stretched them to a breaking point. Meanwhile, Europeans gladly, if not jubilantly, accepted the fact that Europe has been rendered poorer and less safe than at any time since the end of WWII as the price of “stopping Putin,” telling themselves and their American counterparts that Russia’s military or economic collapse is just around the corner if only we keep the war going for one more year, month, week, or day.

keep readingShow less
Nigerian soldier Boko Haram
Top Image Credit: A Nigerien soldier walks out of a house that residents say a Boko Haram militant had forcefully seized and occupied in Damasak March 24, 2015 (Reuters/Joe Penny)

Nigeria’s war on Boko Haram has more than a USAID problem

Africa

Insinuations by a U.S. member of Congress that American taxpayers’ money may have been used to fund terrorist groups around the world, including Boko Haram, have prompted Nigeria’s federal lawmakers to order a probe into the activities of USAID in the country’s North East.

Despite assurances by the U.S. Ambassador to Nigeria, Richard Mills, who said in a statement that “there was no evidence that the United States Agency for International Development, USAID, was funding Boko Haram or any terrorist group in Nigeria,” Nigeria’s lawmakers appear intent on investigating.

keep readingShow less

Trump transition

Latest

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.