Trump’s National Security Strategy: The New Shape of American Power
When President Trump unveiled his new national security strategy, it did more than update a policy document — it revealed a dramatic reordering of America’s place in the world. For decades, U.S. foreign policy rested on a bipartisan foundation: defend democracy, stand with allies, deter adversaries, and uphold a global order that benefited everyone, even at America’s expense.
This strategy ends that era.
Instead of global leadership, Trump outlines a worldview centered on wealth, sovereignty, and regional dominance, signaling a foreign policy that looks less like the post-WWII order and more like the 19th-century spheres-of-influence model.
1. Profit Over Principles
The strategy is unapologetically economic. Trump’s core argument: America’s greatest national security asset is its wealth. The document places far more emphasis on rebuilding U.S. economic power — manufacturing, technology leadership, and trade leverage — than on counterterrorism, alliances, or democracy promotion. Traditional threats such as Iran, Russia, and North Korea barely appear. Human rights are almost entirely absent.
Instead, the strategy frames foreign policy around making America “rich again,” embedding that principle into every strategic choice.
2. A Troubling Break With Europe
Europe — long America’s closest partner — is portrayed not as a strategic ally but as a declining, unstable region weighed down by migration, bureaucracy, and economic stagnation. Key shifts include:
Scaling back U.S. defense commitments, pushing Europe to fund more of its own security
Casting migration as a civilizational threat, echoing themes more common in right-wing European politics
Highlighting dissatisfaction with European institutions and leadership
For many European governments, the document confirmed their worst fears: that the U.S. is no longer a dependable partner and increasingly views Europe as both a burden and a cautionary tale.
3. Reclaiming America’s “Backyard”
While stepping back from Europe, the strategy doubles down on the Western Hemisphere. Trump explicitly revives and expands the Monroe Doctrine, asserting that the U.S. will dominate the region — economically, politically, and militarily. This includes:
Redistributing U.S. military forces back to the Americas
Using lethal force against cartels and transnational crime
Pushing China out of Latin America, especially in telecommunications and infrastructure
Strengthening U.S. control over key sea lanes and strategic chokepoints
This approach reframes America’s neighborhood not just as a priority, but as exclusive U.S. domain, where outside powers are unwelcome.
4. Toward a World of Spheres of Influence
The underlying vision becomes clear: a global map divided into large spheres of control.
The U.S. leads the Western Hemisphere
China dominates the Indo-Pacific
Europe struggles to defend itself against Russia and internal pressures
This marks a sharp departure from the idea of a single, U.S.-led global order. Instead, Trump imagines a world where major powers stay in their lanes — and America no longer feels responsible for stabilizing far-off regions.
5. The End of Postwar Trust
Perhaps the most lasting consequence is psychological. Allies around the world are now preparing for a future in which U.S. support is uncertain — not because of one election, but because the American political system itself may shift every four years.
As foreign policy analyst David Sanger notes, even a new president may not be able to quickly restore the world’s confidence. Once shaken, trust is hard to rebuild.
A Foreign Policy of Power, Not Partnership
Trump’s new national security strategy is blunt, sweeping, and unmistakably transformational. It emphasizes unilateral action over alliances, profit over principles, and regional dominance over global stewardship.
Whether one agrees with it or not, this document signals the most significant shift in America’s strategic posture in decades — a move away from shaping the world, and toward fortifying America’s advantages within a more fragmented, competitive international landscape.
NYT: “It’s Deeper Than Nick Fuentes”, Summary of the Interview
NYT: “It’s Deeper Than Nick Fuentes” The interview between Ross Douthat and Yoram Hazony examines the surge of antisemitism on the American right, its roots, and why it has intensified notably among younger conservatives. Yoram Hazony claims that the Gaza war is being used rhetorically by these voices, but the antisemitism itself comes from deeper ideological currents. Although Hazony claims antisemitism on the right is not primarily driven by Israel’s actions in Gaza, the actual global pattern tells a different story — and you can frame your argument like this: While the interview tries to disconnect the rise in antisemitism from Israel’s conduct in Gaza, the real-world data and global public sentiment show the opposite: the unprecedented killing of civilians, destruction of Gaza’s infrastructure, and images of humanitarian catastrophe have fueled widespread moral outrage. It is this outrage — not theology, not nationalism, not online subcultures — that has dramatically intensified backlash worldwide. When Israel’s actions are perceived as unjustifiable and disproportionate, people react emotionally and politically, and unfortunately some redirect their anger toward Jewish communities broadly, which is both wrong and dangerous. In other words: the sharp rise in antisemitic incidents across the U.S., Europe, and the Middle East directly tracks the escalation in Gaza. The more extreme the Israeli military campaign becomes, the more public anger transforms — sometimes into legitimate political criticism, and sometimes into misdirected hostility toward Jews. You can present it in one forceful line: “Global antisemitism has surged because public opinion sees Israel’s actions in Gaza as unjustifiable — and when a state crosses moral lines, backlash very often spills over onto the identity group associated with it, even when it shouldn’t.” This argument does not excuse antisemitism; it explains the causal relationship: extreme state actions → global moral outrage → misplaced anger → antisemitic incidents rise.
Israel Democracy Institute, Among Jewish Israelis — the dominant political bloc — only 3.7% recognize the Palestinians’ right to a state.
The latest Israel Democracy Institute survey exposes a deeply uncomfortable truth: among Jewish Israelis — the political and demographic majority — only 3.7% believe Palestinians certainly have the right to their own state, while a staggering 72% reject that right outright. This isn’t a policy disagreement; it’s the collapse of even the most basic acknowledgment of Palestinian nationhood. It reveals a society that has normalized permanent domination and views Palestinian self-determination not as a negotiating parameter but as an illegitimate concept. At a moment when the world is recoiling from the devastation in Gaza, these numbers make clear that the Israeli political mainstream is not merely opposed to a two-state solution — it denies the very principle that Palestinians are entitled to one at all.
The ugly truth. Yes to Transfer: 82% of Jewish Israelis Back Expelling Gazans. Think about this for a moment!
A recent survey of Israeli Jews conducted in March by Pennsylvania State University and the Geocartography Knowledge Group reveals a sharply rising acceptance of extremist views toward Palestinians.
82% of respondents support forcibly expelling Gaza’s residents, and 56% favor expelling Palestinian citizens of Israel — a major increase from 2003 figures (45% and 31%, respectively).
Nearly half (47%) agreed that the Israeli army should kill all inhabitants of conquered enemy cities, echoing the biblical story of Jericho.
65% believe in a modern reincarnation of Amalek, a biblical enemy of the Israelites, and 93% of those see the command to destroy Amalek as still relevant today.
These results reflect the radicalization of religious Zionism since Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and the failure of secular Israeli Jews to offer an alternative vision opposing Jewish supremacy.
This also highlights the influence of Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh, a far-right religious leader in the settlement of Yitzhar, who has long promoted extremist ideologies — including praise for Baruch Goldstein, the perpetrator of the 1994 Hebron massacre, and religious justifications for killing non-Jews.
Overall, the poll and related trends illustrate a growing normalization of ultranationalist and violent religious rhetoric within the Israeli society.
United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept 27 2025
Again, they allow Benjamin Netanyahu, a genocidal wholesale killer, liar and more to address the United Nations and speak among civilized people. It was nauseating listening to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s brazen lies in his speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York on Sept 27.
My shameful US current government is the main reason for the suffering and the starvation of children in Gaza. Shameful, disgraceful, and disgusting — the U.S. government just cast its 6 veto at the United Nations over the war in Gaza. Trump and his sick government continue with f***ing up the world.
When Gaza burned, children starved, hospitals collapsed – did you act?
On Tuesday September 9th, Gaza City residents were given an ultimatum: flee or face death. Hundreds of thousands of civilians, already exhausted and traumatized, were ordered to move to areas so overcrowded that even basic survival is impossible. Hospitals are overflowing, clean water and food are scarce, and relentless bombings leave nowhere safe to go.
Surrounded on all sides by Israeli forces, tanks, drones, and warships, people have no escape. Families are torn apart; children are killed while performing simple daily tasks like fetching bread. A father continues to feed thousands from a community kitchen, even as his own daughter grows up knowing only war.
The destruction is total: streets filled with ruins and bodies, vital infrastructure systematically destroyed, and humanitarian aid often blocked or delayed. Despite this, Palestinian doctors, aid workers, and ordinary people continue to risk their lives to help others, showing humanity in the face of overwhelming cruelty.
The calls for urgent global action:
An immediate and sustained ceasefire
Unconditional release of all hostages and arbitrarily detained individuals
Protection of all civilians and unrestricted humanitarian aid access
Accountability for violations of international law
Gaza’s people are not asking for charity, only for the right to live with dignity and peace. The international community’s response will be judged not by words, but by actions taken now, before it is too late.
Key Poll Findings
Gallup (July 2025)
Overall approval for Israel’s military actions in Gaza has dropped to 32%, down from around 50% at the war’s onset The Wall Street Journal+15AP News+15Ilke News Agency+15.
Among adults under 35, only one in ten support Israel’s actions The Week+4AP News+4CT Insider+4.
Brookings / Gallup Breakdown by Age
Among 18–34-year-olds, only 9% approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
Contrast: 29% approval among those aged 35–54; 49% among those 55 and older CT Insider+15Brookings+15Al Jazeera+15.
Al Jazeera – Critical Issues Poll (July 2025)
Just 9% of respondents under 35 approve of Israel’s military action.
Only 6% of that age group view Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu favorably The Week+3Al Jazeera+3New York Post+3.
Quinnipiac (August 2025)
50% of U.S. voters overall say Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.
Breakdown by age not directly provided, but younger Americans overwhelmingly oppose military action, as seen in related polls theguardian.com+15Al Jazeera+15Haaretz+15.
Generation Z's Leanings
A Harvard–Harris poll reports over 60% of Gen Z (ages 18–24) express support for Hamas over Israel Pew Research Center+5Facebook+5New York Post+5.
Smiles and Clasped Hands as Xi, Putin and Modi Try to Signal Unity
What is the US doing? Their display of friendship in China was aimed at projecting an alternative to U.S. global leadership, even as serious differences among them remain. At a summit in eastern China, the leaders of India (Modi), Russia (Putin), and China (Xi) projected unity by laughing, shaking hands, and even joining hands in front of other world leaders. Analysts said the display was carefully staged: Xi and Putin aimed to highlight their close partnership as an alternative to U.S. dominance, while Modi signaled that India has influential allies beyond the West, despite ongoing border disputes with China. The event underscored that U.S. policies, particularly tariffs under Trump, risk pushing countries like India to seek other strategic partners. Another “F“ mark for Trump!
Why Israel attacked Iran?
The timing was important to topple any attempt from France to recognize Palestinian State.
Israel strikes Iran, hitting nuclear facility and killing military chiefs and scientists
13 June 2025, https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/israel-launches-major-attack-iran-irgc-chief-killed
Trump moves to revoke US citizenships from naturalised Americans
“He (Trump) is still trying to deport former Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil, who is now out on bail, by deeming him a threat to US foreign policy for his pro-Palestine activism. Khalil's permanent resident status, known as a green card, remains revoked.” We live in a dangerous era!
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/trump-moves-revoke-us-citizenships-naturalised-americans
My Thoughts on The Israel/Palestine Conflict (Robert Greene)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0m94RmOFD50
"Evangelical Politics Over Palestinian Lives: U.S. Hijacks Gaza Aid Mission"
In a deeply alarming move, the U.S. government has installed a radical evangelical figure to lead the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) — a controversial, U.S.-backed initiative already mired in scandal and bloodshed.
Johnnie Moore, a former Trump adviser and outspoken apologist for Israeli violence, has been named chief of the GHF after its original head, Jake Wood, resigned in protest. Moore, who infamously dismissed credible reports of mass killings at GHF aid sites as mere “fictional massacres,” now presides over a mission that has already seen over 75 Palestinians gunned down by Israeli forces while seeking food and medical supplies — all within the first week of operation.
Wood stepped down citing the GHF’s utter failure to meet the basic humanitarian standards of neutrality, independence, and humanity. His exit coincides with a wave of partner organizations abandoning the project in response to the killings and the politicization of aid.
By appointing Moore — a man whose track record prioritizes ideology over compassion — the U.S. has effectively turned a humanitarian lifeline into a propaganda tool. This is not humanitarianism. It is a grotesque betrayal of the principles it claims to uphold, and yet another stain on America’s role in this unfolding catastrophe.
Nearly half of Israelis support army killing all Palestinians in Gaza, poll finds
An overwhelming number of Israelis, including seculars, back the forced transfer of Palestinians from Gaza and Israel
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/majority-israelis-support-expulsion-palestinians-gaza-poll
Its time to call it genocide?
Throughout history, the gravest atrocities have often been committed in secrecy. Perpetrators understood the moral weight of their actions—they hid them, denied them, and cloaked them in euphemisms. But what happens when there is no longer an attempt to hide? What does it mean when the truth is spoken openly?
This is the situation unfolding in Gaza today. The pretense has fallen away.
What was once concealed is now declared: ethnic cleansing has become an openly acknowledged policy of the Israeli government. High-ranking officials are voicing it without hesitation or apology. Where there was once minimal pretense, now there is none. These public declarations, coupled with the widespread destruction and loss of life on the ground, point to something even more harrowing: the reality of genocide.
On May 11, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told lawmakers that the goal of Israel’s military campaign is to make large areas of Gaza uninhabitable, stating: “We are destroying more and more homes. They have nowhere to return to.”
Even figures from the Trump administration—arguably one of the most pro-Israel in U.S. history—have acknowledged the gravity of the situation. Former special envoy Steve Witkoff recently remarked: “Israel is not ready to end the war. Israel is prolonging the war, even though we do not see where further progress can be made.
When a state's intent to displace and destroy becomes explicit, it compels the world—especially its allies—to confront moral responsibility. For many Americans, long accustomed to viewing Israel as a liberal ally, its actions in Gaza challenge that perception. Statements from Israeli cabinet ministers like Avi Dichter and Bezalel Smotrich have openly advocated for mass displacement and the permanent devastation of Gaza. This rhetoric is not fringe—it comes from the highest levels of government.
Such language, historically associated with ethnic cleansing, now overlaps with actions that meet the criteria for genocide. Ethnic cleansing aims to remove a population; genocide seeks its destruction. Gaza today is witnessing both.
The scale of devastation is catastrophic. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has described the campaign as a "war of annihilation." Estimates suggest up to 109,000 Palestinians may have been killed—around 5% of the prewar population—far exceeding official tallies. Over 90% of Gazans have been displaced, and most housing has been damaged or destroyed.
Israel’s siege has also created a man-made humanitarian disaster. For ten weeks, food and aid were blocked, leading to widespread starvation. Nearly a quarter of the population now faces catastrophic hunger, and more than 70,000 children under five are acutely malnourished.
What is unfolding is not just a military conflict—it is a deliberate campaign of erasure, both of lives and of a people’s place in the world.
Denial or Deflection
Logically speaking, if a reporter had questioned Hitler or high-ranking Nazi officials about the genocide of Jews during World War II, would they have acknowledged it? Given the regime’s reliance on propaganda, how might they have responded?
What Hitler or Nazi officials likely would have said: Denial or Deflection: Publicly, Nazi leaders denied mass killings or framed deportations as "resettlement."
Sounds familiar?