Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Clinton’s Foreign Policy: The Known Unknowns

Regardless of Hillary Clinton's national security predilections, a future Clinton administration will rapidly discover that U.S. foreign policy options are in fact quite limited. The default course is thus likely to be “more of the same” of the Obama administration’s policies and approaches.

Print Friendly


Despite the further stresses introduced by the Federal Bureau of Investigation last week into this most stressful of modern campaigns, Hillary Clinton is still the odds-on favorite to be elected US president. If that judgment is validated on the morning of November 9th, America’s friends and allies abroad can begin to exhale. Whatever opponents have said about Clinton in the presidential campaign, no one can honestly deny that she is smart, savvy, articulate, experienced, and, more-often-than-not, levelheaded.

But true friends of America abroad shouldn’t return to normal breathing patterns just yet. 

First the good news. Despite presidential campaign turmoil and disharmony not seen since the American Republic’s early days—and politics was even rougher back then—after the votes are counted and despite whatever Donald Trump says or does, the American ship of state will, as always, soon right itself. There is also no doubt that, intellectually and temperamentally, Clinton will be a steadying influence on American politics and US engagements abroad.

More good news is that, whatever the new team’s predilections before assuming office, it will rapidly discover that US foreign policy options are in fact quite limited. The default course is thus likely to be “more of the same” of the Obama administration’s policies and approaches. Overall, that is not a bad thing.

But here the good news may end.

Clouds on the Horizon

As of now President Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy agenda is unknowable. Even she can’t know until she occupies the Oval Office, receives her first CIA-produced Presidential Daily Brief, and decides what to do, if anything, about what she learns. Only then will we begin to see her true instincts and attitudes as opposed to what she had to say to get elected. Although grossly unfair, a woman seeking to be commander-in-chief must take muscular stands on the hustings, especially on using military force.

In three areas—Russia, Iran, and Syria—she has advanced hawkish views that do not reassure all of America’s friends, especially in Europe. Perhaps in office she will modify these views. But trends in American thinking can be gleaned. With challenges from Russian President Vladimir Putin, in Ukraine first and now Syria, the US foreign policy community is drifting toward long-term confrontation with Moscow, beyond what the US and NATO are doing to reassure Central European allies. Likewise, there is little support for testing whether relations with Iran can be improved, other than preserving the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which establishes limits on its nuclear program. An increasingly dominant view in Washington, fostered by Sunni Arab states and Israel, is that Iran presents the most serious enduring threat to US interests in the Middle East. As for Syria and the Islamic State (ISIS or IS), candidate Clinton has begun to hedge her bets but has said she will be more assertive with U.S. military power.

Those who look to the US for leadership abroad must recognize that it will be deeply affected by what President Clinton must do at home. Modernizing US infrastructure can no longer be postponed. Further, both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump both struck the same nerve with a large segment of middle- and working-class Americans who feel left behind by economic changes, including globalization, that have kept their incomes stagnant for decades. President Clinton cannot ignore this political upheaval as she works to create a society that is indeed “stronger together;” and she must ask for major investments to enable the country to compete effectively with others, notably China. That means reduced resources and less attention for the outside world. Likewise, she will be challenged on trade liberalization. During the campaign, she was forced to back off on her support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is also in trouble. She has sought wiggle room by promising to be a tough negotiator, but no one should expect strong US support for freer trade anytime soon.

Meanwhile, US security policy will continue rebalancing to Asia and the Pacific. Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter makes that clear in the current issue of Foreign Affairs. Much of that rebalancing is military, and, in a widespread Washington view, the Pentagon should deemphasize the Middle East and Europe (again) as soon as possible—although the timetable has been delayed by the need to destroy IS (short-term) and contain Russia and Iran (longer-term).

Looking at Europe and Asia

Hillary Clinton is an internationalist who opposes American retrenchment. But in the Middle East, she has so far shown no inclination to try extracting the US from the middle of the Sunni-Shia civil war, and she goes along with the visions for the region presented by Arab states (notably Saudi Arabia) and Israel.

She will also likely pay even less attention to European concerns than did either George W. Bush or Barack Obama, neither major-league Atlanticists. Overall, Europe qua Europe is becoming less central to the United States (Brexit does not help.) Donald Trump’s inelegantly phrased scorn for allies who don’t pay their defense bills is mainstream Washington thinking.

Meanwhile, European allies can expect the Clinton administration to ask them to do more: countering Russia in Central Europe, helping stabilize the Middle East, and joining the United States in building a new security architecture for the Far East. The allies are unlikely to respond, which will exacerbate what is becoming a “drift” away from Europe. Like all US presidents, Hillary Clinton will emphasize America’s fealty to transatlantic relations. But Europe should not expect much help in coping with its internal problems, including its refugee burden, itself, ironically, in major part a product of misconceived American policies in the Middle East since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The lesson for America’s friends and allies abroad thus seems clear. There will be anxious times ahead, even with Hillary Clinton as the 45th president of the United States.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Rep. Liz Cheney (R-WY) has been an outspoken proponent of militarist U.S. foreign polices and the use of torture, aping the views of her father, Dick Cheney.

United against Nuclear Iran is a pressure group that attacks companies doing business in Iran and disseminates alarmist reports about the country’s nuclear program.

John Bolton, senior fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute and the controversial former ambassador to the United Nations under President George W. Bush, has been considered for a variety of positions in the Trump administration, including most recently as national security adviser.

Gina Haspel is a CIA officer who was nominated to head the agency by President Donald Trump in March 2018. She first came to prominence because of accusations that she oversaw the torture of prisoners and later destroyed video evidence of that torture.

Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-KS), President Trump’s nominee for secretary of state to replace Rex Tillerson, is a “tea party” Republican who previously served as director of the CIA.

Richard Goldberg is a senior adviser at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies who served as a foreign policy aide to former Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL).

Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has been advocating regime change in Iran since even before 9/11.

For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Print Friendly

Hardliners at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies are working overtime to convince the Trump administration to “fix” the nuclear agreement with Iran on the pretext that it will give the US leverage in negotiations with North Korea.

Print Friendly

North Korea and Iran both understand the lesson of Libya: Muammar Qaddafi, a horrifyingly brutal dictator, gave up his nuclear weapons, was eventually ousted from power with large-scale US assistance, and was killed. However, while Iran has a long and bitter history with the United States, North Korea’s outlook is shaped by its near-total destruction by forces led by the United States in the Korean War.

Print Friendly

Europe loathes having to choose between Tehran and Washington, and thus it will spare no efforts to avoid the choice. It might therefore opt for a middle road, trying to please both parties by persuading Trump to retain the accord and Iran to limit missile ballistic programs and regional activities.

Print Friendly

Key members of Trump’s cabinet should recognize the realism behind encouraging a Saudi- and Iranian-backed regional security agreement because the success of such an agreement would not only serve long-term U.S. interests, it could also have a positive impact on numerous conflicts in the Middle East.

Print Friendly

Given that Israel failed to defeat Hezbollah in its war in Lebanon in 2006, it’s difficult to imagine Israel succeeding in a war against both Hezbollah and its newfound regional network of Shiite allies. And at the same time not only is Hezbollah’s missile arsenal a lot larger and more dangerous than it was in 2006, but it has also gained vast experience alongside its allies in offensive operations against IS and similar groups.

Print Friendly

Donald Trump should never be excused of responsibility for tearing down the respect for truth, but a foundation for his flagrant falsifying is the fact that many people would rather be entertained, no matter how false is the source of their entertainment, than to confront truth that is boring or unsatisfying or that requires effort to understand.

Print Friendly

It would be a welcome change in twenty-first-century America if the reckless decision to throw yet more unbelievable sums of money at a Pentagon already vastly overfunded sparked a serious discussion about America’s hyper-militarized foreign policy.