Trump and isolationism

Given that this conflict brings together the conflicting interests of actors involved in the regional order in the Middle East. Some, such as Israel, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, traditional allies of the United States and specifically selected as such in Trump's first term in office. Others such as Iran and terrorist groups, enemies of both Israel and all that American influence represents in the region. Plus Turkey, a NATO member, and willing, according to Erdogan, to revise the sovereignty order in order to gain a zone of influence in Syria. And the Kurdish militias that are seeking an equally revisionist scenario, in order to set up an autonomous territory in the region. And finally, Russia, weakened in Ukraine and even weaker if it loses its maritime base in the Mediterranean.

If the consequence of the future Syrian political framework were to result in conflict, and the Russians were to see their interests threatened, the Turks their sovereignty, and the Saudis or Iranians the stability provided by their areas of influence, the endless war could be reproduced in the region and at the international level. So it is hard to imagine that in January the Trump administration did not consider the Syrian issue as an issue of particular importance at the start of its term.

Walter Russel Mead identifies in a recent article in Foreign Affairs magazine two conservative trends that have confronted globalist liberalism in the United States: nationalist populism with Jacksonian historical roots and anachronistic isolationism with Jeffersonian origins. Both social currents have been integrated, at least partially, into the MAGA movement built by Trump, together with other more realistic conservative ideas in international politics and together with liberal proposals in the economy, albeit protectionist in the increase of trade tariffs.

In the article, Russell Mead proposes a formula for integrating different tendencies into a common strategy and for escaping the polarisation of recent years. He finds it in pragmatism, which is based on the ideas of one of the fathers of the Constitution, Hamilton, and whose validity would be motivated by the need to overcome the end of globalist liberalism and confront the new rivalry between powers. This Hamiltonian model identifies trade as the predominant activity in a healthy society, patriotism as the basis of social cohesion and identity, and enlightened rationalism as the philosophical framework capable of integrating political and cultural values. An enlightened realism, one might say, to guide foreign policy.

For Donald Trump, a greater America is a country with greater productive capacity and more tariffs. A country more cohesive through a strengthened national vision and a society where traditional values are respected and promoted. A country that prioritises what is relevant to the American interest and discards what is not. In short, his ideas are not so far removed from the pragmatism that Hamilton put forward when the United States was not the world's leading power, nor China a threat, and Russell Mead now recaptures it to face the Chinese challenge and the multipolar competitive order.

However, other conservative and internationalist approaches suggest that the new Administration should take a more offensive view of realism to deal with both situations. It should identify China as an adversary and increase defence spending to 5 per cent. It should be firm in demanding more commitment from allies and engage decisively in inter-power competition. But like the more pragmatic realists, these visions never speak of isolationism, but of the American national interest.

Trump's foreign policy will be framed between the two. Although we will have to wait a few months to see which of the two doctrines is implemented. But the strategy used in the Syrian conflict will serve as an indicator of which of the two will prevail more strongly.