Introduction: An Optimal Way to Begin
Many Americans automatically assume that their preferred political party’s foreign policy aims are substantively congruent with that party’s proclaimed domestic agenda. This simply isn’t the case though, and it’s been one of the primary causes of a tremendous amount of confusion when it comes to understanding US foreign policy.
The piece of writing you’re about to read involves, among other things, an overview of the current presidential administration’s foreign policy aims and agenda. In order to fully take in and really grasp what is being said in this article, it’s vitally important to beware of the knee-jerk tendency to infuse unrelated, pre-established beliefs and prejudices into one’s interpretation of the information being presented herein. With that caveat, read on at your leisure in whatever manner you fancy.
Gauging Trump’s Foreign Policy Aims
Many people have commented that it’s been difficult to get a dependable read on what the Trump administration’s foreign policy aims are regarding US relations with Russia and Ukraine as well as with Israel and Iran. In fact, the reports on what the Trump administration’s positions are have been fluctuating so much that it’s difficult from week to week, even at times from day to day, to get any sort of grasp on whether, for instance, a war with Iran is imminent or unlikely.(1) Likewise, Trump’s position on the Russia-Ukraine conflict seems to shift almost as much as his stance on how the US will proceed in the Middle East.(1a)
Bluster? ADD? Advanced Chess?
There has been no shortage of guesses in the Western news media as to what’s behind the Trump administration’s constant fluctuations. The “mainstream” “left” media seems to be split between two basic opinions. One group believes that all of the administration’s apparent incongruity is simply a result of Trump’s unique incompetence, his lack of an attention span and the absence of any sort of long term objective.(1b)
The other group believes that most of what Trump is doing is a disorientation tactic learned from people like Steve Bannon, who’ve encouraged him to put forth a front of as much bluster and seeming inconsistency as possible, in order to throw anti-MAGA media off the scent of Trump’s real underlying plans.(2) As for more MAGA friendly media, their opinions have often leaned more toward the idea that Trump is playing some sort of advanced chess game and that he has a considered, coherent day to day plan that his critics simply don’t have enough intelligence to understand.(3)
Trump’s Presentational Paella
My take is that the day-to-day reality of Trump’s presentation is a kind of paella, a mix of some of the ideas expressed above and one or two others. On the other hand, I’m not of the opinion that Trump is improvising nearly as much as his more adamant critics believe he is when it comes to his underlying middle to long-term foreign policy aims.
In other words, on the day to day appearance level, Trump’s intentions present as opaque and at times as totally contradictory. If you step back from the day-to-day view though and look at the four month directional line, the basic course that Trump’s most important foreign policy decisions have tended to follow so far, you’ll notice a particular kind of shift. There’s been a clear divergence from the ideological underpinnings of his recent democrat and republican predecessors. In fact, you’ll see the beginnings of what might end up becoming a long term pivot away from the foreign policy doctrine of the first quarter of the 21st century. We’ll go into more detail on this divergence later in this article.
A War on Liberal Culture or a War on the 21st Century Neoconservative Culture of Permanent War?
Most “mainstream” “left” Western news outlets have framed Trump’s foreign policy shift as part of “a war on liberal culture”.(4) This is an example of how the corporate news media tends to confuse its readers by insinuating that liberal domestic policy and what has misleadingly been referred to in the 21st Century as “liberal foreign policy” are synonymous. They are absolutely not synonymous.
21st Century “Liberal foreign policy”, as the Western corporate media has dubbed it, includes:
A) A bipartisan agenda that utilizes perpetual war as a means of empiric expansion and and domestic (weapons) production,
B) US-Israeli exceptionalism,
C) fear mongering via the continual exaggerative propping up of a foreign enemy “other”, be it one of various new versions of Hitler, Russia and Russian interference, a Middle Eastern terrorist threat, etc.,
D) the perpetuation of a Manichean (good versus evil) worldview, in which the US and Israel have been tasked to convert and or tame the rest of the world’s countries until neoliberal capitalism and “democracy” reign in all corners of the planet.
What you’ve just read is a synthesis of the infamous “Wolfowitz Doctrine” and the neocon foreign policy playbook that has shaped American foreign policy since at least 2001. Feel free to vet anything that I mentioned in my little synopsis. You’ll find that all of it is thoroughly well documented and that none of my descriptions are enhanced or hyperbolic.(5),(5a) In fact, most neocons are openly proud of their Zionism infused, violence driven, US-Israel centric doctrine. If you think I’m exaggerating, look at the video clip of them proudly laying out their multiple war agenda, the link to which you’ll find in the citations section of this article::(5b)
US Foreign Policy in the 21st Century
At the beginning of the current century, during the Bush Jr. administration, the neoconservative war and conquest plan became unquestioned US foreign policy doctrine. This ideologically fundamentalist policy, aside from being entirely detrimental to the vast majority of the US citizenry’s economic interests as well as being in direct contrast with their moral proclivities, has been unprecedented in its flagrant use military and economic violence against countries all over the globe. Never before in US history has a doctrine that openly espouses constant wars and domestically aimed fear tactics been unleashed on the world in the way that the neocons’ “Seven Wars in Five Years” plan has over the course of the last 22 years.(6) I’ve gone into detail on the matter of American violence and US-Israeli exceptionalism as openly declared staples of neocon foreign policy doctrine in a previous Pressenza article: https://www.pressenza.com/2024/08/noble-lies-how-the-neocons-hijacked-us-politics-and-subsequently-altered-americas-trajectory/
In fact, it makes perfect sense that over two decades of bipartisan bloodshed in the name of US-Israeli exceptionalism would culminate in an unabashed Biden administration funded and armed Israeli genocide that began at the end of 2023. A documented, Amnesty International confirmed genocide that has continued into 2025 under the Trump administration.(7)
The Disastrous Fall-Out That Has Followed 2 and 1/2 Decades of US Neocon Foreign Policy
At this point, with the advantage of two-plus decades of hindsight, it’s pretty undeniable that the last twenty-four years have been a bipartisanly botched blood-soaked disaster. Especially if one takes into consideration the economic and political collapse that has ensued in the US since the beginning of the 21st century. In less than three decades the US, under the leadership of the bipartisan neoconservative war plan, has already fallen from its very recently acquired dominant peak in the early 1990s.
Now, in 2025 the US is, rightly, distrusted and in most instances feared and despised by two thirds of the world’s population.(8) This was not the case twenty-five years ago. The blood and conquest approach of the last two and a half decades has destroyed America’s reputation and it’s standing as the world’s premier superpower. In short, the Unipolar era, the era of total US dominance that began in 1990, is collapsing largely due to the US’ unprecedentedly ruthless, counterproductive 21st century foreign policy agenda.(8a)
On Top of All This, BRICS
On top of all that has been mentioned so far, over the course of the last three and 1/2 years, the US and its allies have been superseded, economically and militarily, by a rapidly growing global alliance of countries called BRICS. BRICS includes China, Russia, India, Brazil and South Africa among a host of other nations. I have gone into detail about the makeup of BRICS and the cause of its recent growth spurt. That cause, being massive US foreign policy bumbling that occured between 2022 and 2024.: https://www.pressenza.com/2024/11/the-biggest-world-news-item-of-2024-was-not-the-recent-us-election/
An Auspicious Move
Whatever one’s opinions are of Donald Trump’s currently operating domestic policies or of Trump generally, as a person, his pivot toward diplomacy with the US’ so-called “enemies”, is an auspicious move. In fact, it’s existentially essential for the US to continue veering away from its so far catastrophic 21st century foreign policy path, which shunned diplomacy in favor of constant threats and perpetual wars. A path that pushed America right up to the brink of a third World War in the latter half of 2024 into mid January of 2025.(9),(10),(11),(12)
In order for this apparent change in the overall direction of US foreign policy to be more than superficially effective though, a few key criteria will have to be met. These criteria have to do with adapting to the new multipolar world order, which is already well in place and evolving at a continually quickening pace. We’ll discuss these criteria in detail in part 2 of this article.
Stay Tuned for Part 2, Coming in Just a Few Days
In the second half of this two-part piece of writing we’ll discuss how all that has been mentioned so far plays into the shaping of Europe and the US’ future in the second half of the current decade and beyond. We’ll also delve into the problematic aspects of Trump’s tariffs and the adjustments the US will have to make if it is going to avoid economic collapse in the newly forming Multipolar world order.
Part 2 of this article will be posted in just a few days’ time. Any questions you have about what you’ve read so far will be answered there. Expect a surprise or two. Stay tuned.
END OF PART 1
CITATIONS:
1-https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/16/us/politics/trump-israel-iran-nuclear.html
1b-https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/limits-madman-theory
3-https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/fox-news-trump-gaza-plan-b2693008.html
4-https://www.thenation.com/article/society/neocons-trump-foreign-policy/
5-https://www.ussc.edu.au/the-spectre-of-wolfowitz
5a-https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-neoconservatism-empire
5b-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NNEkcfxxHU
6-https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2003/9/22/us-plans-to-attack-seven-muslim-states
8-https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/06/02/united-states-ukraine-trust-developing-nations/
8a-https://www.cigionline.org/articles/americas-unipolar-moment-is-over-what-comes-next-is-unclear/
10-https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-missile-attack-sumy-5cd4f9fe2cee1ae8aed67d63c22b0703
