Here’s another certainty: regarding President Trump’s nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize, Americans are all 100% positive that he should win or 100% positive he is NOT worthy of the award. I think it’s safe to say that there is nothing in the United States today more polarizing than Donald Trump!
Trump supporters have as justification for such a reward the fantastic accomplishments on the part of the President despite the nonstop onslaught by Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, Adam Schiff, and, don’t forget, the Democrat Party messaging arm, the “Lamestream Media.” Just imagine if he had even modest support and even a tidbit of recognition for his accomplishments. I cannot find any comparison regarding specific, verifiable, and positive results in four years by any of his predecessors. Yet, none of those above have given Trump credit for even one of the hundreds of positives for Americans on his watch!
Trump detractors are quick to say, “It’s a prize for accomplishments in World peace. Donald Trump is destroying the opinion of the United States among citizens from every other country on Earth!” Nay: that’s where their allegations lose all semblance of credibility. Donald Trump has diligently and effectively set much of the chaos on Earth from the last decade on its ear. In fact, despite the turmoil on U.S. streets, many foreign leaders look jealously at Trump’s accomplishments, especially BECAUSE of the tortuous non-stop flood of untruthful news and almost daily allegations of “new” wrongdoing by this President uncovered by those bastions of honesty and integrity: the American Media.
So far, the President has notched up two nominations. How can that even be possible? Americans heard NOTHING about each other than a CNN-MSNBC-ABC-CBS-NBC news anchor snicker or two. Yet, the Middle East is seeing a quiet but sure calming of the constant war of words leveled at the nation of Israel. How is it even possible that any U.S. president — especially Donald Trump — could broker not one but two peace deals between Muslim countries and Netanyahu’s dominion? We appear to be witnessing a memorable moment in the Middle East, a region that has left successive U.S. presidents battered, bruised, and bitter. Now, in the space of two months, Trump has secured agreements from the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain to normalize relations with Israel, with more Arab and Muslim states expected to follow.
It is fair for Trump’s detractors to point out these alliances have developed over time and are, in part, driven by the common threat of a nuclear Iran. But if we recognize that Trump disregarded decades of bipartisan “wisdom” about the Middle East, is that not THE reason we are seeing the most positive outcomes in the Middle East for decades? The dreaded question, then, is: what if, somehow, Trump was right? Come on, Man! Trump is the guy who has laughed nonstop in the face of conventionalism in pretty every historical “wisdom” not just about the Middle East, but with countries from every section on the globe. And, in many cases, it has worked.
Of course, Trump can’t be right because the “smart people’ — the foreign policy establishment, the academics, the political hacks, the globalists “we know everything” crowd — said at every juncture that his foreign policy would lead to catastrophe. When Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Iran deal, the smart people called it an act of betrayal on a global scale and said: “Few recent presidential decisions have been proved to be so spectacularly wrong in such a short period of time.” When he took out Iranian terror chief Qasem Soleimani, the smart people called it “extreme” and part of “an increasingly dangerous game of chicken.” When he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and moved the U.S. embassy there, the smart people called it “an act of diplomatic vandalism.” They said the President had “lit the fuse” on “a ticking time bomb” and predicted that “no one will benefit from it, or at least no one interested in peace.”
When he recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, the smart people said: “This is utterly irresponsible, and risks stoking more extremism and instability in the region.” When his administration recognized Israeli settlements as “not inconsistent with international law,” the smart people called it an “indefensible decision” which had “recklessly sacrificed, at least as long as Trump remains president, the last shreds of the U.S.’s claim to be a broker of peace.” When he brought forward his peace plan, the smart people termed it “a framework that may well have hung a closed-for-the-season sign both on a viable peace process and America’s credibility as a fair and effective broker.”
Why are we still listening to all these responsive tidbits of wisdom from the smart people? Trump broke with their consensus, even though in an erratic and conflicting “Trumpian” way, and now the AK-47’s are leaning against the wall in the closet. Kosovo and Serbia are normalizing economic relations, the Kosovo is recognizing Israel, Serbia is designating Hezbollah a terrorist group; Malawi is opening a diplomatic mission in Jerusalem and Chad is reportedly planning on doing the same. Iran, which Barack Obama sought to appease with the failed JCPOA, looks increasingly isolated. Don’t even think about $150 billion dollars, the last of which Obama loaded on a plane in cash and slipped it to Iran during the night.
Not bad for a reality TV star.
Even if these achievements hold up, Trump will likely fall victim to the foreign policy termed a “Reaganism.” When Ronald Reagan spoke of defeating the “Evil Empire,” the smart people said it was impossible; when the Evil Empire fell within a decade, they said it was inevitable and Reagan had nothing to do with it. Trump is not Reagan. Trump does not exist in the same universe as Reagan. Trumpism lacks the moral foundation and intellectual understanding of Reaganism. It took a drastic worldview to guide the 40th president. For Reagan, American greatness was fateful and optimistic; for Trump, it is backward-looking and resentful.
This enrages the American Left: a Queens builder and developer with no formal political training, has stumbled upon answers to questions that have stumped the smart people for years. The Council on Foreign Relations, American international political experts, even the previous Nobel Peace Prize winner Barack Obama all got it wrong while a vulgar nationalist got it right. A Nobel Peace Prize might seem not only in order but positively poetic.
The Nobel Committee has a history of passing out the prize as a political downpayment, expecting some quid pro quo will keep the recipient in line with the Committee’s policy preferences. This doesn’t always work out. Eight months into his presidency, the Committee awarded Obama the Nobel for his “vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.” How’d that work out for those Nobel folks? Five years later, Obama cut the non-proliferation budget by 20 percent and increased spending on nukes by 6 percent. Trump seems even less likely to be influenced once the initial bragging rights wear off. Besides, the Nobel Peace Prize lost its luster when they gave one to the terrorist Yasser Arafat.
Whether Trump gets the prize matters less than whether the smart people can bring themselves to learn the lessons of his presidency: that the United States can be a steady, constant, and unswerving friend of Israel and an honest broker for peace in the Middle East. Sometimes the running-charge of a Donald Trump gets better results than a dozen peace meetings with a dozen foreign leaders at Camp David. Now it seems that a foreign policy elite committed to doing NOTHING, unwilling to relent on any foreign policy failure, and are consistently reluctant to make any “new” foreign suggestions fail in the shadows of a Queens Television Cowboy. Smart people are essential to foreign policy-making but they need leadership, decisiveness, and, every now and then, a spot of dangerous non-conventionalism.
Who knows what will be the longer-term consequences of a reorienting Middle East. The United States under this President’s foreign policy might be earning itself more and better allies, or it could be making itself less relevant to a new diplomatic bloc. But regarding peace in the World TODAY, cooperation, and strengthening the anti-Iran forces, this president has achieved what the previous one could not and perhaps did not really want to. It sticks in the craw to admit it, but Trump outsmarted the smart people.
How’s that making those Foreign Policy elites feel?