Structural problems that leave Trump in a dilemma

Chronic Netanyahu Syndrome in US Politics

Following the intervention in Iran's nuclear facilities on June 22, the White House visit Netanyahu made on July 7 was the scene of tragicomic images. Netanyahu, who has analyzed Trump's narcissistic personality traits well, presented Trump, whom he nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, with a copy of the letter he sent to the Nobel committee. In global diplomacy, where, in the words of Prof. Sam Edwards, "playing the man" has become a decisive factor, this level reached has likely surprised even Trump. However, it is debatable to what extent Netanyahu's 'Trump-focused' diplomatic moves are effective. Trump is aware that Netanyahu is trying to drag the US into a conflict environment in the Middle East in line with his own interests. More importantly, Trump is also conscious that this process contradicts the MAGA movement he started and the America First line.   

The Israel/Iran conflict, which seems to have ended for now, serves as a serious test and warning for Trump. Trump is aware of the political pressures that may arise from Netanyahu in the near future and the danger this poses for the internal dynamics of the Republican Party. Following the meeting Netanyahu had with Trump at the end of December, which he described as "very sincere and warm," Trump shared a video on Truth Social on January 9 of a speech Prof. Jeffrey Sachs gave about Netanyahu. Sachs, describing Netanyahu as a "deep and dark S.O.B.," referred to him as the one who manipulates American foreign policy and is the primary culprit for the never-ending wars in the Middle East. This ironic response Trump indirectly gave to Netanyahu reveals the desperation both politicians have fallen into and an unpleasant relationship of convenience.    

During the February 6 White House visit, Netanyahu gifted Trump a gold-plated symbolic pager, referring to the pagers the Mossad used in September 2024 to eliminate Hezbollah elements in Lebanon. Vice President J.D. Vance was also given a silver-plated one. According to information leaked from anonymous sources, it was later discussed in White House circles that Trump was not very pleased with this gift. 

Putting aside the possible symbolic meanings that can be drawn from Netanyahu's diplomatic moves, the truth is that American foreign policy is in a captive position when it comes to the Middle East. We last saw this desperation in Biden, who remained indifferent to what was happening in Gaza in October 2023, despite the harsh objections rising from the youth wing of his party. Biden, who like Trump does not care for Netanyahu, had expressed his dissatisfaction as early as July 2023 by calling Netanyahu "the most radical government in Israeli history, which constantly escalates the tension between Israel and Palestine."

IDENTITY STRUGGLE IN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Trump has to look after two different political movements that conflict with each other within his own structure and maintain intra-party balances. Caught between institutional Republicans led by Neocon figures like Lindsey Graham and the MAGA movement led by the younger generation like Marjorie Taylor Greene, Trump will follow a strategic 'middle-ground' policy. The argument Trump had with Jeb Bush, who was a presidential candidate from the Republican Party in 2016, is symbolic in this sense, as Trump developed his political career with his opposition to cross-border wars and Neocon policies. Trump targeted his rival Jeb Bush through his brother George W. Bush, and evaluated the 2003 Iraq war and the US's role in this war and its Middle East policies as a disaster built on a lie. Today, Trump has to struggle with the elements of the establishment that favor 'American hegemony' inside and Netanyahu's pressures outside, which drive him into a dead end. The dilemmas Trump has fallen into, both in the Middle East and in Ukraine, make him someone who stands out with his unpredictable and contradictory rhetoric. 

National Intelligence Chief Tulsi Gabbard stated in the Senate hearing on March 25 that Iran does not possess nuclear weapons and that there is no work in that direction. In response, Netanyahu said on June 15 that the intelligence in Gabbard's hands was wrong. Exactly two days later, answering a question from CNN reporter Caitlyn Collins, Trump ignored his own hand-picked intelligence chief by saying, "I don't care what Tulsi says."

Daniel Davis, whom Tulsi Gabbard wanted to appoint to the head of the high-level intelligence position responsible for the briefings to be presented to Trump at the White House, was rejected by the institutional wing of the Republicans, who found him "very dangerous." Davis had criticized the US's role in the Ukraine war and had taken an oppositional stance against the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria. Last January, Davis expressed the US's support for Israel as "a stain on our own character as a nation and culture that is difficult to cleanse." The Atlantic Council analyst and former CIA official Marc Polymeropoulos had drawn attention in his findings to Davis's political position, which remains far outside the ideological line of the Republican Party. Although Davis, who was Gabbard's choice, had an anti-war identity that aligned with Trump's political views, his open criticism of Netanyahu's policies and his stance against a possible military intervention in Iran clashed with the Party's institutional identity.  

The debates started by the Israel/Iran conflict in June revealed the division among Republicans once again. Republican Senator from the State of Georgia, Marjorie Taylor Greene, drew attention to the ideological rift among Republicans with her harsh criticisms she made on her X account on June 16. Targeting Senators who favor military intervention, Greene said, "now everyone will see who is the real 'America First / MAGA' and who is a fake. Anyone who advocates for the US to get involved in the Israel/Iran war is not 'America First / MAGA'." Criticizing her Party again on June 23 following the intervention in Iran, she reminded that the MAGA movement started by Trump stands against wars and regime changes and that the voters voted for this. In her criticism, Greene protested her party by saying, "not even 6 months have passed and we are back to cross-border operations, regime changes, and World War III in order to please the warmongering Neocons and the military-industrial complex." 

On the other hand, Lindsey Graham from the traditional wing of the Party took a stance in favor of continuing the process started against Iran and argued that the "real problem" had not been resolved. Answering questions on June 26, Graham was of the opinion that after not eliminating Iran's "desire and goal to possess nuclear weapons," eliminating three nuclear facilities does not mean much on its own.  

STRUCTURAL PROBLEMS BROUGHT TO THE PRESENT BY 'LIBERAL HEGEMONY' POLITICS

Although Trump wants to keep his country away from a conflict environment, the idea of 'liberal hegemony,' which American Foreign Policy developed throughout the Cold War and which became an ideological reflex and an institutional identity starting from the 1990s, has not yet disappeared. The representatives of this conjuncture, which is identified with statesmen like Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush, and Madeleine Albright and which has settled as 'American exceptionalism' in the unipolar world order, are still active. And this Neocon bureaucratic class, which Trump has been fighting against since 2017, continues to represent the American establishment both within the Democratic Party and within the Republicans. The real obstacle in front of Trump is a political phenomenon that represents an idea contrary to the spirit of the time and an exhausted conjuncture, but whose ideological and economic ties are still strong.

In the multipolar world we live in, 'hegemony' politics is inherently unsustainable because countries like China, Russia, and India now have a say in world geopolitics. The US is no longer "exceptional" or "privileged," and as a natural result of this, it has to go for a power balance. The US, which most recently created a new Cold War environment under Biden's leadership and aspired to global leadership, had taken on Russia and China with its low production speed, alarming defense industry infrastructure, and 37 trillion dollars of debt. Trump, who took the presidency from Biden in the 2024 elections, had been a salvation for the US, whose resources were rapidly depleting. 

In January, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio signaled a new, rational, and realistic foreign policy by saying, "unipolar world dominance was an anomaly that emerged with the end of the Cold War." This attitude, which points to a break from the Neocon philosophy, will require keeping a distance from the Middle East and Europe and focusing on China. However, as a product of the expansionist policies of the past, the US still has more than 750 military bases in 80 countries and around 50 security agreements it has signed that are binding for it. This expansionist geopolitical position of the US can easily drag Trump into a conflict environment he does not desire at all, as we have seen in the examples of Ukraine and Iran. These structural problems will push Trump to act in ways he does not want and to make contradictory moves, independent of his own politics. In other words, Trump is not fully in control of the situation, even though he wants to give the opposite impression.