"The Collapse Has Begun..." — Victor Davis Hanson's Crucial Message

Summary

This analysis compares U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump and Joe Biden, emphasizing the shift in deterrence strategies. Historian Victor Davis Hansen argues that Trump's Jacksonian approach, marked by decisive, sometimes brutal actions, kept global adversaries in check, preventing major conflicts. In contrast, Biden's more diplomatic stance is viewed as signaling weakness, leading to escalations in global conflicts, particularly with Russia and Iran. The discussion delves into the effectiveness of both strategies, questioning whether Trump’s unpredictable and forceful tactics were more successful than Biden's approach in maintaining global stability.

Takeaways

• 😀 Trump's foreign policy was centered around a 'Jacksonian' approach, emphasizing decisive, sometimes brutal actions to deter aggression.
• 😀 Under Trump, NATO members increased defense spending in response to his pressure, but it was only after Russia's invasion of Ukraine that European allies ramped up military investments under Biden.
• 😀 Trump's actions, such as the targeted strike on Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and the elimination of Russian mercenaries in Syria, showcased a policy of deterrence through overwhelming force.
• 😀 Biden's foreign policy, critics argue, has signaled weakness through decisions like removing the Houthis from the terrorist list and easing sanctions on Iran, which has emboldened adversaries.
• 😀 Biden's diplomatic approach, including the handling of the Afghanistan withdrawal, has been viewed as a failure in maintaining deterrence, leading to increased global aggression.
• 😀 Despite criticisms of unpredictability, Trump's approach was effective in deterring adversaries, as seen with no major wars during his tenure and increased NATO defense spending.
• 😀 The Trump administration’s unpredictability made adversaries hesitate, but critics argued it was a dangerous strategy that could escalate conflicts.
• 😀 Biden's administration's predictable, diplomatic approach may have unintentionally invited challenges from adversaries who saw it as a sign of weakness.
• 😀 One of the most significant ongoing threats is Iran's nuclear ambitions, with the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon becoming an urgent global issue.
• 😀 Hansen suggests that Trump would restore a more forceful stance toward Iran, potentially empowering allies like Israel to take decisive action, including preemptive strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

Q & A

What is Victor Davis Hansen's main argument about US deterrence under Trump and Biden?

Victor Davis Hansen argues that US deterrence was stronger under Trump, primarily because of his decisive actions and willingness to use military force. In contrast, Biden's more diplomatic and predictable approach is seen as weakening US deterrence, inviting more aggression from adversaries like Russia and Iran.

How does Hansen differentiate Trump's foreign policy from Biden's?

Hansen describes Trump's foreign policy as a 'Jacksonian approach,' emphasizing decisive, sometimes brutal action to deter aggression. Trump took bold actions, such as killing Iranian General Qasem Soleimani and eliminating Russian mercenaries in Syria. In contrast, Biden's approach focused more on diplomacy, which Hansen argues signaled weakness.

What does Hansen suggest was the impact of Trump's pressure on NATO defense spending?

Hansen argues that Trump's pressure on NATO members to increase defense spending led to a significant rise in military investments among European allies, particularly during his tenure. This buildup was crucial, especially when Russia invaded Ukraine, as it enabled European nations to support Ukraine.

How does Hansen view Biden's handling of the Iran issue, particularly in relation to the Houthis and Iran's economy?

Hansen criticizes Biden for removing the Houthis from the terrorist list and easing sanctions on Iran, which he believes gave Iran a green light to escalate operations. The influx of oil revenues under Biden's policies funded Iranian-backed terrorist groups, further undermining US deterrence.

What specific actions under Biden does Hansen argue have weakened US deterrence?

Hansen points to several key actions under Biden, including removing the Houthis from the terrorist list, easing sanctions on Iran, and the withdrawal from Afghanistan. He argues these actions signaled weakness, emboldening adversaries like Russia and Iran.

What was the strategic significance of Trump's military actions in Syria and against Iran?

Trump's military actions, such as the targeted killing of General Qasem Soleimani and the elimination of Russian mercenaries in Syria, sent a strong message of deterrence. These actions were decisive and meant to show that aggression would be met with overwhelming force, reinforcing US strength.

Why do critics argue that Trump's foreign policy was potentially dangerous despite its successes?

Critics argue that Trump's foreign policy, while effective in deterring aggression, was volatile due to its unpredictability. This unpredictability made him difficult to trust even among allies, and his approach was seen as a short-term fix that could escalate conflicts in the long run.

What is Hansen's perspective on the US withdrawal from Afghanistan under Biden?

Hansen believes the US withdrawal from Afghanistan sent a damaging message to the world, signaling that the US was willing to abandon allies and retreat under pressure. He argues this undermined US credibility and deterrence on the global stage.

How does Hansen propose the US should address Iran's nuclear ambitions?

Hansen suggests reviving Trump's 'maximum pressure' campaign, which involves crippling Iran's economy through strict sanctions. He also acknowledges that military intervention, such as airstrikes or cyber warfare, might become necessary if sanctions fail to halt Iran's nuclear progress.

What role does Hansen see for Israel in confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions under a potential second Trump administration?

Hansen predicts that under a second Trump administration, Israel would be empowered to take decisive action against Iran's nuclear program. The US would provide intelligence, weapons, and logistical support but would allow Israel to act independently, without needing permission, thus reestablishing deterrence in the region.