Commentary
Daniel C. Kurtzer, Aaron David Miller
{
"authors": [
"Aaron David Miller"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"Malcolm H. Kerr Carnegie Middle East Center"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States",
"Middle East",
"Israel",
"Palestine",
"Levant"
],
"topics": [
"Political Reform",
"Foreign Policy"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo Shift on Israeli Settlements Is U.S. Foreign Policy at its Worst
The shift on the U.S. position towards Israeli settlements combined all of the worst elements of foreign policy under President Trump—an obsession with his predecessor; the centrality of domestic politics in his foreign policy; and the untethering of the recent announcement from any coherent strategy.
Published on Nov 21, 2019
Source: USAToday
Monday’s surprise announcement by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that the United States views Israeli settlements as not “inconsistent with international law” should have come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Trump administration’s pro-Netanyahu and anti-Palestinian policies since coming into office.
The move combined all of the worst elements of Trumpian foreign policy — an obsession with his predecessor; the centrality of domestic politics in his foreign policy; and the untethering of the recent announcement from any coherent strategy, including the furtherance of the administration’s own peace plan.
Indeed, Monday’s upending of decades of U.S. policy was yet another example of the Trump administration coming up with a solution to a problem America didn’t have and creating new problems in the process...
About the Author
Aaron David Miller
Senior Fellow, American Statecraft Program
Aaron David Miller is a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, focusing on U.S. foreign policy.
- A Thousand Days After October 7, Washington Still Has No Strategic Plan
- Iran Wanted to Survive the War. Now What?Q&A
Suzanne Maloney, Aaron David Miller, Karim Sadjadpour
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
- Parliamentary Elections in Occupied Ukraine Risk Backfiring for the KremlinCommentary
Despite unhappiness on the ground, Moscow is determined to use both carrot and stick to ensure there is record support for United Russia in occupied Ukraine.
Konstantin Skorkin
- From Hormuz to the Maghreb: The Geopolitical Reach of a Gulf CrisisArticle
Morocco and Algeria, each in its own way, are having to navigate the global economic fallout of the U.S.-Israeli military campaign against Iran.
Yasmine Zarhloule
- Nolan’s "The Odyssey" Has a Colonialism ProblemCommentary
Despite Morocco’s hopes that its film industry would reap rewards, the blockbuster’s success will be tainted by controversy surrounding filming in occupied Western Sahara.
Sarah Yerkes
- Securing America’s Near Abroad: Recalibrating U.S. Policy Toward HaitiPaper
Helping to stabilize Haiti is in the United States’ national interest and can be done by making wise use of various foreign policy tools in addition to supporting international security forces.
Christopher Shell
- Moldova’s Ruling Party PAS Must Graduate From Crisis Management to State GovernanceCommentary
Whether PAS can refocus on the unfinished business of state-building may ultimately prove more consequential for Moldova’s European future than the pace of its accession negotiations.
Balázs Jarábik
