What to make of Trump once again questioning the value of NATO? I’m coming to the conclusion that you can’t put much literal stock in what Trump says - it’s as if he views everything as a negotiation and he wants to always be taking the initiative in order to set the terms - and in setting the terms he cares more about attitude and perceived weaknesses than he does about details. I mean, how could Trump possibly hold a position on NATO that’s in opposition to his entire national security staff? The more reasonable explanation is that Trump wants countries to live up to their defense expenditure obligations under NATO and begins the negotiation re that by going for the jugular: America may need NATO, but Europe needs America more - which is true - weakness exposed, onto the negotiations.
The interesting or frustrating or outright scary thing about this behavior is that it makes it very hard to know exactly what Trump thinks about almost anything - which makes it hard to make predictions about the intent, means and goal of any wouldbe policy - does Trump actually believe an upgraded F-18 can replace an F-35 [ludicrous] or is saying so just a negotiating ploy? Depending on what one believes leads to very different policy outcomes or perceptions. Is Trump really willing to challenge the ‘one China’ status quo or is by focusing in so quickly, before he’s even taken the oath of office, on what is clearly a weakness of China’s just him setting the terms of a coming ‘negotiation’? Dunno - but depending on what you believe leads to very different outcomes and potentialities.
Now, how one manages and manipulates perceptions of ‘uncertainty’ can definitely pay huge dividends for a shrewd negotiator - but when it comes to markets and economies and security commitments etc etc, these things tend to be not so welcoming, in any final sense at least, of uncertainty. The question is, can the effects of uncertainty be leveraged to produce more favorable final results? The answer obviously is yes - the scary unknown is: with what attending risks? So take the embassy move to Jerusalem - if it happens it should scare the shit of Palestinian leadership because what Trump will be telling them is that he’s a rock solid supporter of Israel willing to make bold moves to protect and promote its interests - faced with that reality the Palestinian leadership will have to deal with the uncertainty of not knowing how far Trump is willing to go - and therefore they will have two choices: intifada, which will go very badly for them if Trump does not back down [I mean, how could they know he wouldn’t support annexing Area C?] - or capitulation ie show a willingness to engage in serious, not sham negotiations - meaning, accept Israel as the Jewish homeland, accept that Israel’s security needs must be adequately addressed, accept that the ‘right of return’ is never gonna happen, and accept that the Temple Mount will become a shared space for all religions. Uncertainty can be applied against Palestinian weakness and get you to a just deal - or set off a violent chain of events that leads who knows where.
Funny enough, it’s not dissimilar from what Obama tried - except Israel was the target - he thought he could Isolate Israel, back Netanyahu into a corner, damage him, and open up the door to some nice Israeli leftists willing to buy into his ‘new progressive world order’ nonsense and do his bidding. Failed miserably - ended up pushing Israel further to the right and securing Bibi’s reelection. Obama failed because he saw Israel and the region through the distorting prism of left wing academia - which means he saw Israel and the region in terms utterly detached from reality, terms which sought to flatter the presumed nobility of his illusions. Hopefully Trump and his surrogates will come at the problem with a more clear-eyed interpretation of what’s real and what’s not. [ie the settlements are not a real problem - how do we know this? - because there were no settlements when the PLO was founded or when Arafat embraced terrorism as a means of delegitimizing Israel - there were no settlements when Nasser promised to drive the Jews into the sea or in ‘67 when Muslim nations crowded Israel’s border with the intention of doing precisely that - there were no settlements unless one viewed Israel itself as it existed in 1948 as an illegitimate, nay insulting settlement of kafirun - which brings us to the real problem - Muslims really don’t like the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine]
