United States International Relations

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares69 Views

    The Evolution of Trump’s Views on Foreign Aid

    by

    Foreign aid, a pillar of American foreign policy for generations, has been gutted since President Trump began his second term in office. The United States Agency for International Development and other government agencies that provide food, medical care and economic development assistance to the world’s poorest nations, have been largely defunded or eliminated in recent months.In justifying the administration’s destruction of the agency, Mr. Trump said U.S.A.I.D. had been run by “radical lunatics,” and he has made numerous false claims about the agency’s work in the developing world. It included preventing and treating H.I.V. and malaria; providing emergency food assistance; and advancing the country’s national security interests by establishing new markets for American goods.Mr. Trump has never been a big fan of foreign aid. But in his first term, he often reveled in the role of dispenser-in-chief of American largess.Not so anymore.To understand Mr. Trump’s evolution from foreign aid skeptic to enthusiastic supporter to, lately, its most determined and powerful foe, The New York Times reviewed nearly 1,000 speeches and interviews he has given over the past 15 years.2011As a presidential candidate in his first bid for office, Mr. Trump often described foreign assistance as wasteful and said the money would be better spent at home. “Foreign affairs is we take care of ourselves,” he said during an appearance on NBC’s “Today” show.

    @media screen and (max-width: 600px) {

    figure.img-sz-medium {
    max-width: calc(100% – 40px);
    }

    .sizeMedium {
    max-width: calc(100% – 40px) !important;
    }

    }

    section div:first-of-type div p:first-of-type {
    padding-bottom: 10px;
    }

    figcaption[data-testid=”photoviewer-children-caption”] {
    margin: 12px auto 0 auto;
    padding-right: 13px;
    padding-left: 13px;
    text-align: center;
    }

    #top-wrapper, sponsor-wrapper {
    display: none;
    }

    We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 75 Shares104 Views

      in Elections

      How Trump Decided to Strike Iran

      by

      Standing at the lectern in the White House briefing room on Thursday afternoon, Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, read a message she said came “directly from the president.”Because of the “substantial chance of negotiations” with Iran that could bring the United States back from the brink of jumping into the war in the Middle East, President Trump’s statement said, he would make a decision about whether or not to strike Iran “within the next two weeks.”Mr. Trump had been under pressure from the noninterventionist wing of his party to stay out of the conflict, and was having lunch that day with one of the most outspoken opponents of a bombing campaign, Stephen K. Bannon, fueling speculation that he might hold off.It was almost entirely a deception. Mr. Trump had all but made up his mind to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and the military preparations were well underway for the complex attack. Less than 30 hours after Ms. Leavitt relayed his statement, he would give the order for an assault that put the United States in the middle of the latest conflict to break out in one of the world’s most volatile regions.Mr. Trump’s “two weeks” statement was just one aspect of a broader effort at political and military misdirection that took place over eight chaotic days, from the first Israeli strikes against Iran to the moment when a fleet of B-2 stealth bombers took off from Missouri for the first American military strikes inside Iran since that country’s theocratic revolution in 1979.Journalists watching as President Trump addressed the nation after American bombs were dropped on Iranian nuclear sites on Saturday night.Anna Rose Layden for The New York Times More

    • 100 Shares82 Views

      in Elections

      Trump’s Strike on Iran Cements Netanyahu’s Political Comeback

      by

      The United States’ overnight attack could cause further escalation. To Israelis, it is already seen as a victory for Israel, and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.Twenty months ago, in the aftermath of Hamas’s attack on Israel in October 2023, Benjamin Netanyahu’s political career teetered on a precipice. As Israel’s prime minister, he had overseen the deadliest military lapse in the country’s history, wrecking his security credentials and collapsing support for his government.The United States’ overnight attack on Iran on Sunday, coupled with Israel’s own recent strikes, has taken Mr. Netanyahu to the brink of political redemption. For decades, he dreamed of thwarting Iran’s nuclear program, defining it as the greatest threat to Israel’s future, and its destruction as his highest military priority.Now, he is as close to reaching that goal as he may ever get. To many Israelis, it is a success that helps to revive his reputation as a guardian of their security, raises his chances of re-election and, depending on how the next weeks develop, could cement his historical legacy.“This night marks Netanyahu’s greatest achievement since he first came to power in 1996,” said Mazal Mualem, a biographer of Mr. Netanyahu. “From the perspective of the public, he has achieved a victory against what is considered the greatest threat to Israel since its founding.”In Iran, the short-term consequences of the U.S. strikes have yet to play out. It is not yet clear if they completely destroyed their targets. Even if they did, Israel could continue to attack Iran, seeking to further destabilize the Iranian government.Iran fired another barrage of missiles at Israel on Sunday, and many fear it will retaliate against U.S. military bases, embassies and interests. That could prompt more American and Israeli strikes on Iran, lengthening the war.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 113 Shares76 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Military Is Pulled Back Into Middle East Wars

      by

      The strikes on Iran ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation against American forces in the region.The U.S. strikes on nuclear sites in Iran are an extraordinary turn for a military that was supposed to be moving on from two decades of forever wars in the Middle East, and they put the United States back on war footing.Across the region, where more than 40,000 American troops are on bases and warships, the strikes ushered in a period of high alert as the Pentagon braced for almost-certain retaliation from Iran.President Trump announced on social media that three Iranian sites were hit, including the mountain facility at Fordo. The bombs used in the strikes are believed to include “bunker busters,” which are designed to destroy deep underground bunkers or well-buried weapons in highly protected facilities.A U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss confidential intelligence said that multiple 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs were dropped on Fordo, and that initial damage assessments indicated that the facility had been “taken off the table.”The strikes, whether successful or not, are likely to trigger a fierce response. Tehran has vowed to strike at American bases in the Middle East, and American intelligence agencies confirmed before the strikes took place that Iran would take steps to widen the war and hit U.S. forces in the region. U.S. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence, said the strikes against the three nuclear sites were complete. The official said no follow-up attacks were expected, although commanders were ready to respond to any Iranian retaliation.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 200 Shares111 Views

      in Elections

      No U.S. Decision on Joining War Yet, Though It Could Come in Days, Israeli Officials Say

      by

      Israel on Saturday struck sites in southwestern Iran that would most likely be on any potential flight path used by U.S. warplanes on the way to attack a key Iranian nuclear facility.The Trump administration has not told the Israeli military whether the United States plans to join the war on Iran, two Israeli defense officials said on Saturday.But the two officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss security matters, said they believed that Washington was likely to enter the war and that it was already making preparations to do so.Based on Israeli conversations with their American counterparts over the past two days, the officials said, a U.S. strike on Iran could take place in the coming days.President Trump was scheduled to meet with his national security team at the White House on Saturday evening to discuss the possibility of joining Israel’s attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. While the White House has said Mr. Trump has not made a final decision on an attack, the United States has dispatched several Air Force B-2 bombers from an American base and across the Pacific.The bombers can carry the 30,000-pound bunker-buster bombs Mr. Trump is considering dropping on Fordo, the heavily fortified underground nuclear facility in Iran that is critical to its nuclear program.The planes could provide options to the president, even if they are not ultimately deployed. In moving the B-2 bombers — and allowing the public to know about it — the White House may also be seeking to pressure Iran to come to the negotiating table.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares112 Views

      in Elections

      Europe’s Growing Fear: How Trump Might Use U.S. Tech Dominance Against It

      by

      To comply with a Trump executive order, Microsoft recently suspended the email account of an International Criminal Court prosecutor in the Netherlands who was investigating Israel for war crimes.When President Trump issued an executive order in February against the chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court for investigating Israel for war crimes, Microsoft was suddenly thrust into the middle of a geopolitical fight.For years, Microsoft had supplied the court — which is based in The Hague in the Netherlands and investigates and prosecutes human rights breaches, genocides and other crimes of international concern — with digital services such as email. Mr. Trump’s order abruptly threw that relationship into disarray by barring U.S. companies from providing services to the prosecutor, Karim Khan.Soon after, Microsoft, which is based in Redmond, Wash., suspended Mr. Khan’s I.C.C. email account, freezing him out of communications with colleagues just a few months after the court had issued an arrest warrant for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for his country’s actions in Gaza.Microsoft’s swift compliance with Mr. Trump’s order, reported earlier by The Associated Press, shocked policymakers across Europe. It was a wake-up call for a problem far bigger than just one email account, stoking fears that the Trump administration would leverage America’s tech dominance to penalize opponents, even in allied countries like the Netherlands.“The I.C.C. showed this can happen,” said Bart Groothuis, a former head of cybersecurity for the Dutch Ministry of Defense who is now a member of the European Parliament. “It’s not just fantasy.”Mr. Groothuis once supported U.S. tech firms but has done a “180-degree flip-flop,” he said. “We have to take steps as Europe to do more for our sovereignty.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares66 Views

      in Elections

      Trump Buys Himself Time, and Opens Up Some New Options

      by

      While President Trump appears to be offering one more off ramp to the Iranians, he also is bolstering his own military options.President Trump’s sudden announcement that he could take up to two weeks to decide whether to plunge the United States into the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict is being advertised by the White House as giving diplomacy one more chance to work.But it also opens a host of new military and covert options.Assuming he makes full use of it, Mr. Trump will now have time to determine whether six days of relentless bombing and killing by Israeli forces — which has taken out one of Iran’s two biggest uranium enrichment centers, much of its missile fleet and its most senior officers and nuclear scientists — has changed minds in Tehran.The deal that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected earlier this month, which would have cut off Iran’s main pathway to a bomb by eventually ending enrichment on Iranian soil, may look very different now that one of its largest nuclear centers has been badly damaged and the president is openly considering dropping the world’s largest conventional weapon on the second. Or, it may simply harden the Iranians’ resolve not to give in.It is also possible, some experts noted, that Mr. Trump’s announcement on Thursday was an effort to deceive the Iranians and get them to let their guard down.“That could be cover for a decision to strike, immediately,” James G. Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and the former supreme U.S. commander in Europe, said on CNN. “Maybe this is a very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.”Even if there is no deception involved, by offering one more off-ramp to the Iranians, Mr. Trump will also be bolstering his own military options. Two weeks allows time for a second American aircraft carrier to get into place, giving U.S. forces a better chance to counter the inevitable Iranian retaliation, with whatever part of their missile fleet is still usable. It would give Israel more time to destroy the air defenses around the Fordo enrichment site and other nuclear targets, mitigating the risks to U.S. forces if Mr. Trump ultimately decided to attack.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      U.S. Spy Agencies Assess Iran Remains Undecided on Building a Bomb

      by

      U.S. intelligence officials said Iran was likely to pivot toward producing a nuclear weapon if the U.S. attacked a main uranium enrichment site, or if Israel killed its supreme leader.U.S. intelligence agencies continue to believe that Iran has yet to decide whether to make a nuclear bomb even though it has developed a large stockpile of the enriched uranium necessary for it to do so, according to intelligence and other American officials.That assessment has not changed since the intelligence agencies last addressed the question of Iran’s intentions in March, the officials said, even as Israel has attacked Iranian nuclear facilities.Senior U.S. intelligence officials said that Iranian leaders were likely to shift toward producing a bomb if the American military attacked the Iranian uranium enrichment site Fordo or if Israel killed Iran’s supreme leader.The question of whether Iran has decided to complete the work of building a bomb is irrelevant in the eyes of many Iran hawks in the United States and Israel, who say Tehran is close enough to represent an existential danger to Israel. But it has long been a flashpoint in the debate over policy toward Iran and has flared again as President Trump weighs whether to bomb Fordo.White House officials held an intelligence briefing on Thursday and announced that Mr. Trump would make his decision within the next two weeks.At the White House meeting, John Ratcliffe, the C.I.A. director, told officials that Iran was very close to having a nuclear weapon.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 63 Shares90 Views

      in Elections

      An Iran Strategy for Trump

      by

      Nobody, perhaps even President Trump himself, knows for sure whether the United States will wind up joining Israel in launching military strikes on Iran. “I may do it, I may not do it,” he said on Wednesday. But with a third U.S. aircraft carrier on its way to the region and the president calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender,” the chance of war seems higher than ever — particularly now that Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, has gruffly rebuffed Trump’s demand.If the U.S. does attack, the most obvious target will be the Fordo nuclear site, a deeply buried facility where Iran enriches uranium and which, by most reports, can be knocked out only by a 15-ton bomb known as a Massive Ordnance Penetrator, or MOP. Less well known but surely on the U.S. target list is a new, still unfinished subterranean facility south of Iran’s main (and now largely destroyed) enrichment plant at Natanz. American pilots would also almost certainly join their Israeli counterparts in attacking Iranian ballistic missile launchers and bases.And then what? Nobody doubts the U.S. can do a lot of damage to Iran’s nuclear capabilities, at least in the short term. What comes afterward is harder to predict.Proponents of an American strike believe that we have no realistic choice other than to help Israel do as thorough a job as possible in setting back Iran’s nuclear ambitions not just for months but years — more than enough time to allow benign forces to shape events, including the possibility of Iranians overthrowing their widely detested rulers.By contrast, skeptics fear that the lessons Iran’s leaders will draw from an American attack is that they should have gotten a bomb much sooner — and that the appropriate response to such an attack is to be more repressive at home and less receptive to diplomatic overtures from abroad. Skeptics also expect that Iran will respond to an attack by ramping up its malign regional activities, not least to embroil the U.S. in another Middle East war the Trump administration desperately wants to avoid.I’m with the proponents. A nuclear-armed Iran, fielding missiles of ever-growing reach, is both an unacceptable threat to U.S. security and a consequential failure of U.S. deterrence. After years of Iran’s prevarications, which led even the Biden administration to give up on diplomacy, to say nothing of Iran’s cheating on its legal commitments — detailed last month in a report by the International Atomic Energy Agency — the world had run out of plausible nonmilitary options to prevent the regime from going nuclear.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More