President Donald Trump meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, Finland, on July 16, 2018. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
Behind closed doors with Netanyahu, the Trump administration faces a question it cannot spin away: Is American foreign policy now being scheduled around elections?
By Lisa Pillivant
Apparently, the war with Iran has developed an unusual habit: It keeps returning after President Donald Trump has repeatedly portrayed American military operations as a success.
On Monday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth made an unannounced visit to Israel for discussions with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu about Iran and the possibility of renewed military operations.
The timing could hardly be more revealing. Netanyahu faces an election on October 27. Trump faces a midterm reckoning November 3. And the American public faces the continuing consequences of a conflict that has disrupted oil shipments, driven up fuel prices and raised questions about how, when and why the United States went to war.
What exactly was discussed behind those closed doors? More importantly, whose interests were being served?
Critics have long questioned whether Netanyahu’s determination to confront Iran helped persuade Trump to enter a war the American public never enthusiastically embraced. That remains a matter of debate, not an established account of the decision. But Americans are entitled to ask whether their president is making independent judgments or allowing another country’s political and military priorities to dictate America’s future.
Now comes the suggestion that renewed confrontation with Iran might conveniently wait until after the elections.
Think about that.
If military action is necessary to protect American lives, why should an election calendar determine its timing? And if it can safely wait until November 4, how urgent is it in the first place?
Wars are supposed to be governed by national security, not campaign strategy.
Meanwhile, Trump is traveling the country campaigning for Republican candidates, urging voters to treat the midterms as a referendum on his presidency. He may regret that invitation.
Republicans facing difficult races cannot entirely separate themselves from the president’s decisions. They must answer for a war without a convincing conclusion, rising energy costs and a foreign policy that too often seems to change with the day’s headlines.
And then there is the remarkable contrast between how this administration treats America’s traditional allies and its adversaries.
Canada, a longstanding friend and trading partner, has endured Trump’s tariffs and confrontational rhetoric. Yet Vladimir Putin, whose invasion of Ukraine has devastated cities and killed countless people, has benefited from the administration’s decision to waive additional sanctions under legislation Congress recently passed with bipartisan support.
That legislation, championed by the late Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, was supposed to increase pressure on Moscow. Instead, Trump invoked a national-interest waiver, leaving Americans to wonder whose national interest was being protected.
Dwight Eisenhower, who understood the costs of war, and Ronald Reagan, who confronted Soviet expansionism, would surely struggle to recognize the foreign-policy priorities now being advanced in their party.
The president, of course, remains fond of recounting his performance on cognitive tests. He has entertained audiences with stories about identifying animals and remembering simple sequences.
But recognizing a lion or a giraffe is hardly the same as recognizing an aggressor.
Identifying a bear on a test is one thing. Recognizing the Russian bear’s intentions in Ukraine apparently presents a considerably greater challenge.
The administration’s defenders will argue that Trump is using pressure, unpredictability and personal diplomacy to force better agreements. That is a legitimate strategy to debate. But a strategy must ultimately be judged by results, not by the volume of its announcements.
Where is the promised peace? Where is the stable Middle East? Where is the relief for American families? And why does a supposedly decisive military victory require yet another round of discussions about restarting the fighting?
Americans deserve answers before the next round of bombs, not another victory speech afterward.
Congress, too, should remember that the Constitution gives it responsibilities that cannot simply be outsourced to the Oval Office. Questions of war, spending and national security deserve public scrutiny, especially when the consequences extend far beyond any president’s political future.
The approaching elections may well become a judgment on Republican leadership. But the larger issue is more troubling than which party controls Congress.
It is whether the American presidency has become so consumed with political survival that even questions of war and peace are filtered through the next election.
A president can declare victory from a podium. He cannot declare away the consequences.
And if this war is truly over, someone should have the courage to tell the people still fighting it.
___________________________________________________
* The opinions expressed in this editorial reflect only those of the contributing writer(s) and not necessarily those of the Warwick Valley Dispatch management, staff, or sponsors.
