During the US election campaign, President-elect Donald Trump delivered some unexpected statements which created a stir among the US people and around the world. People were in a muzzy and fuzzy to vote or not to vote. The world saw right-wing groups and ultra nationalist groups that supported Mr. Trump around the world. Extremist organisations from India to the US and to Britain, unconditionally joined him. Even Brexit campaign’s right wing leader Nigel Farage immediately met him after a successful referendum of Brexit.
Since 2015, the Trumpnisation rapidly had grown across the continent. The world changed from the current condition to the extreme level, but I was assessing the entire evolving situation very differently. My stand-point in this scenario was completely detached. Neither I supported the rightist party, Republican, or Leftist Party, Democratic. I was not in a prime position to follow any political block.
This was not an election, but a movement as it was said by Mr Trump, and I quite agreed with what he said because it was a movement that placed a great barrier between relations, nations, races, countries and religions. There was not a middle way or a win or lose position, but a YOU or WE situation and certainly, WE won. This is why violence and anarchy in demonstrations broke out across the country because it was a situation of WE and YOU.
My observation during the election focussed on the US foreign policy. The Trumpnisation block accused Mrs. Hillary Clinton of financing, supporting and promoting terrorism in the Middle East. I was not in a position to accept their accusations against the Secretary of State because it was the external foreign policy of the US to support Libyan rebels (who later killed the US Ambassador), Syrian rebels (who later joined Al-Nusra- Al-Qaeda), Afghan war lords (who were involved in a Kabul Genocide) and Palestinians groups (who were and are involved in terrorism against the state of Israel).
Accusing Hillary individually, was part of an election campaign and nothing more since the credit of the supporting such groups goes to the Pentagon and the White House respectively. Now, the question is this…Would Trumpnisation block be successful to stop White House’s direct role in the Middle East policy? I can say, NO because the national interests of the country are far higher than Mr Trump or his Trumpnisation block. Recently, Mr Trump announced his 100-day plan and introduced 10 legislations. Three of them would be thrown out of his plan sooner or later.
Plan 1- Propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
Plan 2- A lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
Plan 3- A complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
Personally, I like these plans and I fully support them. I also believe, every well-wisher of the US would also accept these plans, but unfortunately Trump cannot impose the lifetime ban on these policies because these plans are going to hit directly on the domestic and foreign policy of the country. Mr Trump would face opposition within the Republican party in the Congress and in the Senate.
It has already started, according to the recent news report:
“On Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell mostly made nice with Trump, but also shot down or expressed little enthusiasm in some of his plans. On Trump’s proposal to impose term limits on Congress, McConnell said, “It will not be on the agenda in the Senate.” McConnell has been a long-standing opponent of term limits, as NPR’s Susan Davis reports. “I would say we have term limits now — they’re called elections.” McConnell also threw some cold water on Trump’s infrastructure plans, calling it not a top priority.
I really want a ban to be imposed on the White House’s foreign involvement in the world, especially in the Middle East but it cannot be possible because Mr Trump has not yet been briefed by the Pentagon and the White House administration. He still sees this balloon from standing outside, but after stepping in, he would not be able to make a hole in it. I don’t doubt his intention, but I must doubt his personal policy which cannot be fulfilled. He might think to bring a revolution by challenging the Federal Reserve Bank, but he might forget the army’s guard of honour on President Kennedy’s coffin.
John F Kennedy wanted a revolution which he started by challenging the FRB but he ultimately failed. Martin Luther also wanted a revolution of equality and fairness, but he remained in our memories. There was only person who brought a historical revolution and that was George Washington, no one else. Whoever will consider bringing a revolution in the US will remain in our memories for good.
Mr. Trump wished he could move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, but certainly he did not read the Jerusalem Embassy Act 1995. I personally support this act, but again, it is not in the US national interests to implement this act fully. It is said:
“The United States has withheld recognition of the city as Israel’s capital. Since passage, the law has never been implemented, because of opposition from Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama, who view it as a Congressional infringement on the executive branch’s constitutional authority over foreign policy; they have consistently claimed the presidential waiver on national security interests.” This act has been clearly described by James Sorene, the CEO of BICOM in his recent article What does Donald’s triumph mean for Israel’s future?
Donald Trump can never bypass the national interest of the US on internal or external issues and it is a big dilemma. It can be possible that he may introduce some reforms which may change the outer shape of the policy but cannot completely diversify it. We recall that the world powers are not feeling comfortable with the statements given by Trump before the election, which included criticizing China, NATO, European Union and the Arab states.
I must mention that Mr. Trump already withdrew from some of his promises before sitting in the Oval Office which was the banning of Muslim entry in the US, Mexico wall (still under process not to implement it fully), relations with Muslim (Arab) countries, Obama’s Health care (showed interest in some of its bullets points after meeting with Obama) and he might change or withdraw his promise (in election campaign) about the Federal Reserve Bank (He accused the Federal Reserve of keeping interest rates low for political reasons). I see his promises only election rhetoric which are not significant to run the governmental system.
Mr. Donald Trump’s policy towards Syria and Russia is completely opposite to the White House and Pentagon’s current policy, which may raise a distance between him and the establishment. In his first interview to the Wall Street Journal, Mr Trump confirmed that he will mostly likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek possible rapprochement with Russia: US president-elect warned that if the US attacks Assad, “we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.” Mr Trump said, “he has had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria.” He further elucidated:
“My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”
These are the Trump policies which can create massive chaos between the Pentagon and his new White House administration and the same story will be repeated as there was a barrier between Pentagon and Obama administration.
There is a certain fear in Jerusalem administration about Trump’s close relations with Russia. It was Mr Putin, who fully supported Donald Trump in his election campaign and in return, Mr. Trump titled him as a powerful man of the powerful country by admitting Russia as a world power. And, no doubt, it is not a good sign for the Prime Minister’s office of the state of Israel because they are completely unknown to him and his unknown dissimilar policy.
The state of Israel sees Russia as a historical opponent and Mr Trump’s bilateral relations with the Russian Federation may endanger Israel’s national interests in the region because there is a rumour that Vladimir Putin sees Mr. Trump as his own man in the White House.
I hope, the President-elect, Mr. Donald Trump, will do all what it should to be in the integrity of the United States. He may change a foreign policy to improve the country’s positive image and better it. There must not be a fear in a Democratic supporter about his promised policies (before his winning) because after the confidential and sensitive meeting with the Pentagon and the White House administration, the world would see a completely different and politically mature Donald Trump who would lead the nation and the world according the national interests of the world and not the US Only.