First, conservatives opposed to military intervention overseas put their trust in President Donald Trump as he swept back into power.
Then, the faction in his inner circle that backed the administration’s “peace through strength” motto looked to Vice President JD Vance and Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth as their champions.
Now, as all three men are supporting the war in Iran, the pro-restraint wing of the Republican Party is searching for fresh leadership.
The fissure within Trump’s foreign policy community, described by seven White House allies, threatens to splinter a key element of the administration — particularly as it faces pressure to execute the Iran war while keeping American troops from entering the country.
“I would characterize the current moment as one of fear and paralysis,” said Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the conservative Cato Institute. “There’s also a group of people who had aspirations or have aspirations to go into the government, who are asking themselves whether they still want to do so, and who are biting their tongues while they figure out the answer to that question.”
Restraint-minded Republicans once thought Trump had their back. He’d promised not to start new foreign wars on the campaign trail. His vice president and Defense secretary spent the first year of the administration railing against foreign interventionism. Trump’s National Security Strategy even said his foreign policy leaned toward non-interventionism.
But the operation in Venezuela and Iran have changed all that. The back-and-forth over the war has deepened the confusion — even within the MAGA movement — about what Trump’s foreign policy is really about.
Any notion that the administration would set a “high bar” for military interventions is now “dead in the water,” said a former Trump administration official, who like others interviewed, was granted anonymity to speak candidly. “I just can’t wrap my mind around how, given some of the things that are being contemplated, we would pivot back to that.”
Trump, in one of several dozen phone interviews over the last few days, brushed off criticism from political allies upset over his abandonment of the America First mantra he ran on.
“MAGA is Trump,” he said.
The president’s clear expectation that his supporters will back whatever he does, even if it’s a 180-degree turn from long-held positions, applies to his most senior aides as well, according to an ally of the White House.
“Vance and others may have their own views, but they know what they signed up for,” the person said. “Their personal views are not relevant or operable most of the time.”
The White House rejected the idea that the president was forsaking his supporters. “President Trump is courageously protecting the United States from the deadly threat posed by the rogue Iranian regime — and that is as America First as it gets,” said Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson. The entire national security team is working together “to end Iran’s ability to possess a nuclear weapon, use or develop ballistic missiles, arm proxies, or use its now-defeated navy.”
Trump has so far averted congressional limits on the five-day old military campaign. A war powers resolution to curb the president’s military authority failed in the House and Senate. But the deaths of six U.S. service members, loss of three F-15 jets in a friendly fire incident and the escalation of the fighting beyond Iran have raised concerns among Trump allies on Capitol Hill.
“America First was supposed to be a rejection of the globalist war machine,” said Rep. Warren Davidson (R-Ohio), one of few Republicans to vote for the war powers measure.
Trump is far from the first U.S. president to go back on his campaign pledge to end foreign wars. Woodrow Wilson won the 1916 election promising to keep the U.S. out of combat, only to enter World War I five months later. George W. Bush campaigned against nation building in 2000, only to order U.S. troops to fight in Iraq three years later.
But a massive military campaign in Iran, and muddled messaging about its purpose, is a turning point for some in the foreign policy establishment.
Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby told House lawmakers on Tuesday that the U.S. would not be involved in an “endless war.” By Wednesday, Hegseth was saying war with Iran had “only just begun.”
Hegseth on Tuesday said the war was “not about regime change.” But by Thursday, the president was announcing the U.S. would be directly involved in picking the country’s next leader.
The Defense Department denied any discrepancy.
“President Trump and Secretary Hegseth have been crystal clear from day one on our objectives: destroy the Iranian regime’s missiles and obliterate their missile industry; annihilate the Iranian regime’s Navy; ensure the regime’s terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces … and guarantee that Iran can NEVER obtain a nuclear weapon,” Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said in a statement.
One person familiar with the Trump administration’s deliberations on Iran said restraint-minded officials were already uncomfortable with last summer’s Pentagon strikes on Tehran’s nuclear program and the Venezuela operation. But they were indignant about the new U.S. war in the Middle East that has not been tied to a legal authorization in Congress or a strict operational timeline.
The U.S.-Israel war has also confused allies, who thought American military support abroad was receding as the administration focused on the homeland.
“We’re waiting for the next turn,” said one foreign diplomat. “For months we were told that the U.S. was looking inward and the homeland was the focus and regime change was not a goal, but now two regimes have fallen in military action — so which is it?”
But some have yet to take side in the war of ideas within Trump’s team. A person close to the president’s national security team said that clear divisions among top aides haven’t fully developed because the administration is still so unsettled about its endgame in Iran.
“It’s not coherent or clear yet,” the person said, “because they still don’t know what the goals are.”
from Politics, Policy, Political News Top Stories https://ift.tt/ig7jTQd
via IFTTT
0 Commentaires