Latest news with #foreignPolicy
Wall Street Journal
12 hours ago
- Politics
- Wall Street Journal
The ‘America First' Face-Off
The first big battle over who speaks for Donald Trump busted out this week. The appropriators of Mr. Trump's 'America First' foreign policy got over their skis on Iran—exposing how far they've drifted from their leader. Mr. Trump schooled the upstarts; now we'll see if he holds firm. A small, loud contingent of MAGA isolationists have worked for years to influence Mr. Trump, to seize the 'America first' foreign-policy agenda. Until recently, this campaign was waged carefully. It yielded some victories in both personnel (Vice President JD Vance) and policy.
New York Times
12 hours ago
- Politics
- New York Times
For Trump, ‘Two Weeks' Is the Magic Number
'Within the next two weeks.' That is when President Trump now says he will be ready to make his decision about bombing Iran or not. This new timeline was offered by the White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt at her briefing Thursday afternoon. But as she read the president's statement aloud, some in the room couldn't help but feel that this new time frame sounded a little … familiar. As almost everyone in Washington is by now aware, 'two weeks' is one of Mr. Trump's favorite units of time. Asked eight weeks ago if he could trust Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, Mr. Trump replied, 'I'll let you know in about two weeks.' Tax plans, health care policies, evidence of conspiracy theories he claimed were true, the fight against ISIS, the opening of some coal mines, infrastructure plans — all were at one point or another riddles he promised to solve for the public in about two weeks. It is a slippery thing, this two weeks — not a measurement of time so much as a placeholder. Two weeks for Mr. Trump can mean something, or nothing at all. It is both a yes and a no. It is delaying while at the same time scheduling. It is not an objective unit of time, it is a subjective unit of time. It is completely divorced from any sense of chronology. It simply means later. But later can also mean never. Sometimes. Is the United States going to bomb Iran? We don't know. Will we actually find out the answer to that question within two weeks? We don't know that either. A reporter in the briefing room tried to bring Mr. Trump's timeline into our shared space time continuum but the White House didn't seem ready for that voyage. 'President Trump has said previously, in regard to Russia, he's used the phrase 'about two weeks' several times, in terms of, like, 'We expect a two week deadline,' and then he'll give another two week deadline,' the reporter said to Ms. Leavitt. 'How can we be sure he's going to stick to this one on making a decision on Iran?' Ms. Leavitt basically replied that one thing can't be compared with another. This was really a question of metaphysics more than anything else. transcript 'I have a message directly from the president, and I quote, 'Based on the fact that there is a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.'' 'What exactly would a deal with Iran need to entail?' 'No enrichment of a uranium and it would, absolutely not — Iran is not absolutely not able to achieve a nuclear weapon.'
Fox News
13 hours ago
- Politics
- Fox News
Caroline Sunshine: I Don't See A Reason For The U.S. To Militarily Engage In The Middle East At This Current Moment
Former Trump 2024 Campaign Deputy Communications Director Caroline Sunshine joins Fox Across America With guest host Rich Zeoli to explain why she is opposed to the U.S. getting involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran. In our country, the government derives its power from the consent of the governed. And the power resides with us, the people, and we give that power. And we have given that power to President Trump because the leaders of the past have failed us, particularly on foreign policy. And a huge reason President Trump was elected was because the American people saw that prolonged conflicts in the Middle East have been costly to us in terms of blood, in terms treasure, in times of time. They haven't seen how they've in the interest, in our interest. And every conflict always starts with some big, bold promise or that it'll be quick, that it will be just a strike, that it would be five minutes, but then it fails to answer the question of then what. And our country doesn't have a good track record there. And so, like President Trump said, great nations don't fight prolonged conflicts. And I don't see a how it is directly in the interests of the American people to go get involved in this conflict right now. And I do see a huge downside, which is that getting involved in the conflict, I see derailing President Trump's domestic agenda, which is so important and another reason why he was elected. I think if we get involved with this conflict, this war will become a huge distraction. And President Trump's extremely popular agenda here at home of deporting the 15 million illegal immigrants that were let in under the previous administration, implementing tariffs, and rebuilding our middle class will get completely derailed. And those things are more directly in the interest of the American people than getting involved in a conflict again in the Middle East. Caroline Sunshine Reacts To The Trump-Elon Feud Check out the podcast to hear their full discussion!
Bloomberg
2 days ago
- Politics
- Bloomberg
EU Top Envoy Warns of Larger Conflict If US Involved in Iran
By and Andrea Palasciano Updated on Save US military involvement in the spiraling conflict between Iran and Israel risks spreading throughout the Middle East, the European Union's top diplomat warned on Tuesday. Speaking to reporters after a video call with EU foreign ministers, the bloc's most senior foreign policy official Kaja Kallas said it was 'clear to everyone' that Iran can't be allowed to develop a nuclear bomb — but diplomacy rather than force is the best way to prevent it.
RNZ News
3 days ago
- Politics
- RNZ News
As Christopher Luxon heads to China, his government's pivot toward the US is a stumbling block
By Robert G. Patman of NZ Prime Minister Christopher Luxon meets with China's President, Xi Jinping in Lima. Photo: Pool / Chris Skelton Analysis: Ahead of his first visit to China, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been at pains to present meetings with Chinese premier Xi Jinping and other leaders as advancing New Zealand's best interests. But there is arguably a degree of cognitive dissonance involved, given the government's increasing strategic entanglement with the United States - specifically, the administration of President Donald Trump. It was this perceived pivot towards the US that earlier this month saw a group of former senior politicians, including former prime ministers Helen Clark and Geoffrey Palmer, warn against "positioning New Zealand alongside the United States as an adversary of China". Luxon has brushed off any implied criticism, and says the National-led coalition remains committed to maintaining a bipartisan, independent foreign policy. But the current government has certainly emphasised a more active role on the international stage in closer alignment with the US. After coming to power in late 2023, it hailed shared values and interests with the Biden administration. It then confidently predicted New Zealand-US relations would go "from strength to strength" during Trump's second presidency. To date, nothing seems to shaken this conviction. Even after the explosive White House meeting in February, when Trump claimed Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky was a warmonger, Luxon confirmed he trusted Trump and the US remained a "reliable" partner. While Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters apparently disagreed in early April over whether the Trump administration had unleashed a "trade war", the prime minister depicted the story as a "real media beat-up". Later the same month, Luxon agreed with Peters that New Zealand and Trump's America had "common strategic interests". We can trace the National-led government's closer security alignment with the US back to late January 2024. New Zealand backed two United Nations General Assembly resolutions calling for immediate humanitarian ceasefires in Gaza. But Luxon then agreed to send a small Defence Force team to the Red Sea to counter attacks on shipping by Yemeni Houthi rebels protesting the lack of a Gaza ceasefire. The government has also enthusiastically explored participation in "pillar two" of the AUKUS security pact, with officials saying it has "the potential to be supportive of our national security, defence, and foreign policy settings". In the first half of 2025, New Zealand joined a network of US-led strategic groupings, including: To be sure, New Zealand governments and US administrations have long had overlapping concerns about China's growing assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific region and beyond. The Labour-led government of Jacinda Ardern issued a defence policy statement in 2018 explicitly identifying China as a threat to the international rules-based order, and condemned the 2022 Solomon Islands-China security pact. Ardern's successor, Chris Hipkins, released a raft of national security material confirming a growing perception of China's threat. And the current government has condemned China's comprehensive strategic partnership with the Cook Islands - a self-governing entity within the New Zealand's realm - and expressed consternation about China's recent military exercises in the Tasman Sea. But US fears about the rise of China are not identical to New Zealand's. Since the Obama presidency, all US administrations, including the current Trump team, have identified China as the biggest threat to America's status as the dominant global power. But while the Obama and Biden administrations couched their concerns (however imperfectly) in terms of China's threat to multilateral alliances and an international rules-based order, the second Trump administration represents a radical break from the past. Trump's proposed takeovers of Gaza, Canada and Greenland, his administration's disestablishment of USAID, sanctions against the International Criminal Court, and withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and the UN Council for Human Rights are all contrary to New Zealand's national interests. Similarly, his sidelining of the UN's humanitarian role in Gaza, his demand for a Ukraine peace deal on Russian terms, and his assault on free trade through the imposition of tariffs, all conflict with New Zealand's stated foreign policy positions. And right now, Trump's refusal to condemn Israel's pre-emptive unilateral attack on Iran shows again his administration's indifference to international law and the rules-based order New Zealand subscribes to. It is becoming much harder for the Luxon government to argue it shares common values and interests with the Trump administration, or that closer strategic alignment with Washington balances Chinese assertiveness in the Indo-Pacific. On the contrary, there is a real risk Trump's apparent support for Vladimir Putin is viewed as weakness by China, Russia's most important backer. It may embolden Beijing to be forward-leaning in the Indo-Pacific, including the Pacific Islands region where New Zealand has core interests. A better strategy would be for New Zealand to reaffirm its friendship with the US but publicly indicate this cannot be maintained at the expense of Wellington's longstanding commitment to free trade and a rules-based global order. In the meantime, a friendly reminder to Luxon's hosts in Beijing might be in order: that New Zealand is an independent country that will not compromise its commitments to democratic values and human rights. Robert G. Patman is a Professor of International Relations at the University of Otago. This story was originally published on The Conversation.
