National

John Bolton’s departure from the White House has deepened uncertainty in Washington about how the White House plans to handle a myriad of pressing national security issues.

The big picture: From the war in Afghanistan to North Korea’s nuclear program to pressure on Iran, the partnership of President Trump and his most recent national security adviser, while uneasy, was relatively predictable. On several of those issues, Trump may now angle for policies more in line with Democrats' policy positions.

The impact: For the past 18 months Democrats have been able to criticize the president’s execution of diplomacy while not criticizing diplomacy. Bolton favored bombing Iran, called for shredding nuclear agreements with Russia and opposed talks with the Taliban.

With Bolton out of the way, the familiar hawkish bogeyman is no longer available as a proxy target for criticism of President Trump’s foreign policy.

Between the lines: Iran is the clearest case in which Trump appears to be pivoting to the Democratic position, mulling a rollback of his "maximum pressure" sanctions campaign in exchange for face time with the Iranians. Absent pressure from Bolton, this path could lead to renewed diplomacy and, paradoxically, an agreement like the nuclear deal Democrats strongly supported.

On North Korea, Trump appears to be comfortable with the new status quo of regular missile testing. While Bolton's departure makes a "fire and fury" escalation less likely, Trump's personal overtures to Kim Jong-un may not secure the firm diplomatic deal Democrats would want — one that includes verifiable denuclearization, limits on missile technology, and non-aggression commitments.

On Afghanistan, many Democrats accept the war may not have a military solution, but Trump's pursuit of a diplomatic exit still raises difficult questions. With the recent Camp David talks called off, the odds of a rushed withdrawal have increased, opening Trump up to criticism from Democrats who support leaving but prefer a negotiated, staged process.

What to watch: As President Trump increasingly calls for outcomes that require diplomacy, Democrats will have to decide whether to support him, particularly if he makes headway in achieving foreign policy goals they have long championed.

Joel Rubin is the president of the Washington Strategy Group and a former deputy assistant secretary of state.

Trump and Democrats may find more foreign policy overlap post-Bolton

Diplomacy will be central to many of the president's desired outcomes.

President Trump in the Oval Office. Photo: Alex Wong/Getty Images

World

Foreign policy

Expert Voices

Politics

Afghanistan

John Bolton’s departure from the White House has deepened uncertainty in Washington about how the White House plans to handle a myriad of pressing national security issues.The big picture: From the war in Afghanistan to North Korea’s nuclear program to pressure on Iran, the partnership of President Trump and his most recent national security adviser, while uneasy, was relatively predictable. On several of those issues, Trump may now angle for policies more in line with Democrats&#x27; policy positions.

President Biden has made the COVID-19 crisis and a post-Trump return to national unity and traditional democratic ideals his top priorities. From vaccinations to stimulus to schools, Biden is seeking bipartisan compromise while showing a willingness to use executive authority and bare Democratic majorities in the U.S. House and Senate to implement his policies. Republican leaders are navigating deep party divisions over if and how to move beyond former President Trump.

Politics & Policy

Amid ongoing flare-ups between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump and his allies will travel this week to diplomatically engage allies on Middle East peace, North Korea’s nuclear program, U.S.–China trade and more.

Why it matters: The week's meetings present an opportunity for Trump and his team to demonstrate their ability to leverage diplomacy as a tool of American power. He’ll be taking on tough issues this week, and his administration's policies have in many ways amplified the work ahead.

On June 24, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met both Saudi Arabia's King Salman and Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in Jeddah, and will next head to the United Arab Emirates to further solidify a regional coalition against Iran. National security adviser John Bolton is in Jerusalem to meet Israeli and Russian officials in hopes of recruiting Russian support in containing Iran.

On June 25–26, Jared Kushner will convene his Middle East peace meeting in Bahrain, with attendees from the Gulf states but without either the Israelis or the Palestinians. The plan asks other countries to pay for $50 billion in economic policies that no key players expect to yield a peace agreement. At the moment, the most promising outcome is a loose list of commitments.

On June 28–29, Trump will join the G20 Summit in Japan to discuss the global economy and security issues. The highlight will be Trump’s bilateral meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping, yet the negotiating teams are still far from a trade deal and that conflict could complicate Chinese cooperation on North Korea.

On June 30, Trump will head to South Korea to meet with President Moon Jae-in, who is largely responsible for recent American diplomacy with North Korea and eager to resuscitate it.

Meanwhile, on June 26–27, Trump’s domestic opponents will have a 2-night national platform to criticize his policies during the Democratic presidential debates.

Candidates are likely to highlight Trump’s careening on Iran, where tensions have escalated to the brink of war; catatonic nuclear negotiations with North Korea, where two leader-level summits have secured no firm results; and the unilateral trade war against China, which is straining the U.S. economy.

The bottom line: Trump’s Iran bombing flip-flop last week suggests that he and his team still lack a coherent vision for determining and executing their national security goals. The week ahead will show whether he and his team manage a swing back toward multilateral problem-solving or continue the go-it-alone approach that is increasingly isolating the U.S. from its allies.

Trump team slated for a full week of fraught global diplomacy

From the Middle East to East Asia, tensions are running high.

President Trump disembarking Air Force One

President Trump disembarking Air Force One. Photo: Loic Venance/AFP/Getty Images

Amid ongoing flare-ups between the U.S. and Iran, President Trump and his allies will travel this week to diplomatically engage allies on Middle East peace, North Korea’s nuclear program, U.S.–China trade and more.Why it matters: The week&#x27;s meetings present an opportunity for Trump and his team to demonstrate their ability to leverage diplomacy as a tool of American power. He’ll be taking on tough issues this week, and his administration&#x27;s policies have in many ways amplified the work ahead.

Top stories & latest news on the Federal Reserve, real-time data, plus the biggest shifts happening in the U.S. and global economy.

Economy

After a record economic expansion, the coronavirus pandemic sent the U.S. economy into a recession as unemployment soared to staggering heights. The country now faces urgent questions about how much stimulus is needed for reeling consumers and businesses, and what a recovery might look like.

Economy & Business

The Trump administration's dealings with Ukraine — including details first brought to light in a whistleblower complaint and now under investigation by multiple House committees — may have undermined critical American security interests both in Europe and across the globe.

The big picture: The House impeachment inquiry — spearheaded the the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees — is already reshaping the 2020 elections and could also have a profound impact on the United States' global standing and ability to project influence.

Between the lines: The inquiry encompasses a range of sensitive and consequential issues:

Balance of powers: The increasing centralization of foreign policy in the hands of the executive branch — to the exclusion of Congress — has raised concerns about the ability of the American people to influence foreign policy decisions. The more the Trump administration ignores Congressional mandates, such as military aid to Ukraine and subpoena requests, the further U.S. governance drifts from its Constitutional foundations. 

Conduct of diplomacy: Administration officials may have been pursuing off-the-books, back-channel initiatives unauthorized by Congress — effectively sidelining consensus-driven foreign policy. If top political appointees or non-governmental envoys such as Rudy Giuliani advanced personal political agendas, that would compound the harm to American credibility abroad.

Russia deterrence: Withholding American military aid to Ukraine weakens its national defense and undercuts a shared goal of the U.S. and its Western allies. It also sends a troubling signal to NATO — and Russia — about America's determination to stand up to Russia's physical aggression in Europe.

Election security: Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky could constitute solicitation of a foreign campaign contribution. Moreover, little has been done to strengthen U.S. cyber defenses, and Trump has continued to downplay concerns about foreign interference.

The bottom line: The Ukrainian issues under mounting scrutiny could be only the tip of an iceberg. If the Trump Administration blocks cooperation with the impeachment inquiry, it could end up exacerbating perceptions that private interests have been placed above national security — a potentially challenging position for a commander in chief seeking reelection.

Trump-Ukraine inquiries could center on national security concerns

Key issues include U.S. diplomacy, election security and Russia deterrence.

Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky in adjacent chairs for press conference

President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the UN General Assembly. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration&#x27;s dealings with Ukraine — including details first brought to light in a whistleblower complaint and now under investigation by multiple House committees — may have undermined critical American security interests both in Europe and across the globe.The big picture: The House impeachment inquiry — spearheaded the the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs and Oversight Committees — is already reshaping the 2020 elections and could also have a profound impact on the United States&#x27; global standing and ability to project influence.

After the U.S. accused Iran of carrying out drone attacks against Saudi Arabia over the weekend, President Trump has ramped up his rhetoric rather than seeking to ease tensions — including the "locked and loaded" proclamation that echoed his "fire and fury" threats against North Korea 2 years ago.

Why it matters: Airstrikes or any other form of military retaliation against Iran would require not only congressional authorization but a thorough strategy for a sprawling web of security issues that would affect American troops, regional stability and global energy markets.

Between the lines: The prospect of a military strike raises a cascading series of risks.

The U.S. has nearly 30,000 troops stationed in the Persian Gulf, plus another 14,000 in Afghanistan and more than 5,000 in Iraq (both of which border Iran). Those forces would need a protection plan and a strategy in place should they be engaged by Iranian proxies.

There's no simple military solution to the challenges of Iran's nuclear program short of a massive invasion. But an attack could lend the program legitimacy by strengthening Iran's case for it as a needed deterrent.

Military action could amplify ongoing regional conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq. Countering those escalations would require an even greater commitment of U.S. troops.

Global oil flows could continue to suffer. With sanctions already keeping Iranian oil practically off the market, any loss to the Saudi supply makes for a greater hit. Spiking oil prices are likely, as is increased use of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve.

The bottom line: The serious risks of a heightened military standoff with Iran call for a well-developed strategy from a White House not known for its orderly policymaking.

U.S. strike on Iran could bring tangle of escalation risks

Conflicts in Yemen, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq further raise the stakes.

U.S. Navy ships moored at the 5th Fleet command center in Manama, Bahrain. Photo: Mohammed al-Shaikh/AFP/Getty Images

Iran

After the U.S. <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="accused" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/saudi-arabia-oil-drone-strikes-us-blames-iran-29b0bc8b-3645-4fc1-9770-84288dffd7a6.html" data-vars-content-id="769d576a-dc0c-4773-96d1-52037f37c055" data-vars-headline="U.S. strike on Iran could bring tangle of escalation risks" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/saudi-arabia-oil-drone-strikes-us-blames-iran-29b0bc8b-3645-4fc1-9770-84288dffd7a6.html" target="_self">accused</a> Iran of carrying out drone attacks against Saudi Arabia over the weekend, President Trump has ramped up his rhetoric rather than seeking to ease tensions — including the &quot;locked and loaded&quot; <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="proclamation" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/trump-iran-locked-loaded-saudi-arabia-oil-d54d0bd5-8739-4c6e-a589-151fbfd09377.html" data-vars-content-id="769d576a-dc0c-4773-96d1-52037f37c055" data-vars-headline="U.S. strike on Iran could bring tangle of escalation risks" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/trump-iran-locked-loaded-saudi-arabia-oil-d54d0bd5-8739-4c6e-a589-151fbfd09377.html" target="_self">proclamation</a> that echoed his &quot;fire and fury&quot; <a class="gtmContentClick" data-vars-link-text="threats" data-vars-click-url="https://www.axios.com/trumps-war-of-words-with-north-korea-1513305686-c529cb2d-40ed-4545-99ff-2179d9a0f9d3.html" data-vars-content-id="769d576a-dc0c-4773-96d1-52037f37c055" data-vars-headline="U.S. strike on Iran could bring tangle of escalation risks" data-vars-event-category="story" data-vars-sub-category="story" data-vars-item="in_content_link" href="https://www.axios.com/trumps-war-of-words-with-north-korea-1513305686-c529cb2d-40ed-4545-99ff-2179d9a0f9d3.html" target="_self">threats</a> against North Korea 2 years ago.Why it matters: Airstrikes or any other form of military retaliation against Iran would require not only congressional authorization but a thorough strategy for a sprawling web of security issues that would affect American troops, regional stability and global energy markets.

China is becoming the most formidable rival America has faced, and the risk of confrontation with Russia, North Korea or Iran still looms. Authoritarians are rising, the chaotic Afghanistan exit revealed the limits of U.S. power, and the pandemic, climate change and other critical challenges continue to pose grave threats.

In the wake of revelations about President Trump's shadow Ukraine diplomacy, the State Department has found itself in arguably its worst internal crisis since the Red Scare purges of the McCarthy era.

Why it matters: Like the military, the U.S. diplomatic corps is meant to do its work apart from the partisan political fray of Washington. But evidence suggests the Trump administration has interfered with that mission, circumventing career officials in the process, to pursue personal business interests and political aims.

Where it stands: The State Department has been rocked by concerns that Secretary of State Mike Pompeo furthered Trump's political goals to pressure Ukraine, a U.S. ally, by withholding a White House meeting and vital security funds.

Pompeo adviser Michael McKinley, whose career ambassador rank is equivalent to that of a general in the armed forces, resigned last week, attributing his departure to the politically motivated recall and reputational smearing of former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch.

George Kent, the senior official responsible for Ukraine policy in Washington, testified that he was sidelined by Energy Secretary Rick Perry, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland and special Envoy Kurt Volker.

As both officials have explained, these politicized decisions undercut policy objectives, engendering new forms of corruption rather than rooting it out.

The impact: The State Department has begun to hollow out. Applications to join the Foreign Service dropped by 22% in the first two years of the Trump administration, diminishing the talent pool the department will depend on years down the line.

Between the lines: It's especially difficult for department morale that many problems come from the top.

Pompeo told House committees that to protect personnel the State Department would not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry. But the treatment of Yovanovitch and the testimony of other officials make clear that their interests were not the highest priority.

Many State Department officials still recall Pompeo's attacks on diplomatic personnel during the Benghazi hearings (in the name of congressional oversight, ironically).

The bottom line: Undermining the work of the State Department — which is America’s global representative — risks reducing American standing and influence in an ever more complex and chaotic world.

Ukraine scandal deepens crisis roiling State Department

Morale has taken a hit and foreign service applications are on the decline.

Mike Pompeo speaking at a lectern in front of an American flag

Secretary Pompeo. Photo: Saul Loeb/AFP via Getty Images

Department of State

In the wake of revelations about President Trump&#x27;s shadow Ukraine diplomacy, the State Department has found itself in arguably its worst internal crisis since the Red Scare purges of the McCarthy era.Why it matters: Like the military, the U.S. diplomatic corps is meant to do its work apart from the partisan political fray of Washington. But evidence suggests the Trump administration has interfered with that mission, circumventing career officials in the process, to pursue personal business interests and political aims.

Joel Rubin

Stories

Ukraine scandal deepens crisis roiling State Department

Trump-Ukraine inquiries could center on national security concerns

U.S. strike on Iran could bring tangle of escalation risks

Trump and Democrats may find more foreign policy overlap post-Bolton

Trump team slated for a full week of fraught global diplomacy