DV Journal

The results of the elections show many are optimistic that President-elect Trump will bring about a new Golden Age in America. What will this new era mean for the world? Most seek peace, prosperity and the hope of a better future for all. The hardships associated with the Biden administration, including inflation, crime, and border insecurity, are ready for much-needed relief.

America, the greatest nation in history, expressed its voice through election results coast to coast, returning a trifecta of conservatism to the presidency, Senate and House of Representatives — including a significant victory in the popular vote. The American people are sending leaders into office with a mandate.

Recent history reminds us of the fatigue and loss that war brings. The bitterness of bloodshed is abhorred by all involved. With a change in leadership, we have the potential to promote harmony and save lives.

Rather than investing in allies’ wars, Trump will act as commander-in-chief and diplomat-in-chief to broker ceasefires in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Trump will invest in saving lives, not merely providing warfighting equipment, with a steady backbone of competence and conviction.

“Peace through strategy” is the long-standing mission of Defending Our Country. On the eve of this most consequential election for America, with the future of Western democracy on the ballot, we attended a United Kingdom-sponsored event in London. From academics to taxi drivers, waiters and shopkeepers, everyone we encountered wished for Trump to return to the Oval Office.

With the election results determined and campaign season over, the time for governing is here. However, the rhetoric that rallies a nominee’s base differs from the diplomacy needed to lead the Free World into a new Golden Age. It is time for Trump and the transition team to think strategically through hiring decisions that can broker “peace through strategy.”

The strategy for manifesting a Golden Age demands an executive branch filled with the most innovative scientists and researchers, accomplished business leaders, and acclaimed minds from the private sector. The inbreeding of government bureaucracy and the Ivory Tower pipeline of how Washington has always done business continues to miss the mark and the heartbeat of democracy, as evidenced by the historic vote of the American people and sentiment abroad.

The path forward for the Golden Age requires Trump to select capable leaders with a record that speaks to their dedication and calling to serve the nation faithfully and effectively. By constitutional design, the executive branch represents a bench of talented experts who can advise on and execute the entire functioning of the federal government.

The priority should be retaining an executive branch that will formulate and streamline the federal budget. Second, policy frameworks should include a grand strategy that brings in allies and partners across the globe instead of isolating and creating adversarial coalitions. Third, an emphasis on the “peace through strategy” narrative should be adopted. Leaders and the public have realized that the brute focus on “peace through strength” has not served America or its partners productively since the end of the Cold War.

The 21st century has brought unique challenges and increasing conflicts that have redefined effective strategies. It is time for adversarial world leaders, such as Russian President Vladimir Putin, Chinese Communist Party Chairman Xi Jinping, the Iranian Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei, and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to redefine their legacies and join the Golden Age — not watch it occur as tyrants on the sidelines. These adversarial leaders have proven to the world that their paths to war do not win, are unsustainable, and have not advanced their national interests.

As Americans voted for Trump, the world watched and longed for his return to power. The Golden Age is the clarion call of Trump to America’s citizens, global leaders, and individuals worldwide to live securely and safely.

America is at full potential, and a Golden Age is achievable if the president hires those with a different spirit and mindset who can innovate, create and shape a better future through the manifestation and global mandate of “peace through strategy.”

War is never a good thing, but as terrible as it is to say, sometimes it is necessary. It is understandable that once a war begins, the horror of human suffering that always comes with it leads many well-intentioned people to think that anything that might stop the fighting — even for a short time — is good. Wouldn’t a cease-fire help — as John Lennon would say — to “give peace a chance”? 

Alas, this is not always the case.

Cease-fires can, under some circumstances, be useful. If both parties to a war are interested in peace and willing to compromise on issues in contention, then having a break in the carnage of war can definitely be a positive thing. It allows for a moment of calm when negotiations lead to a breakthrough and offer a chance for peace. And it also provides an opportunity for humanitarian aid to reach those who have been caught up in the war zone.

However, cease-fires work only if both parties are interested in achieving peace and are trustworthy. Cease-fires are based on the assumption that the parties in a war are rational actors and have found themselves in an unfortunate position and are looking for ways to back away from it. They depend on both parties abiding by the terms of the cease-fire.

Unfortunately, there are some people with whom one cannot negotiate. And as sad as it is, some are not honest. Some countries and some non-state actors want war and even welcome the suffering of the innocent. It is sometimes tricky for basically good people to grasp this. Their weakness is that they don’t understand many people are nothing like them. They are good human beings but fundamentally naïve in the face of evil. The people most likely to call for cease-fires amid conflict do not understand those who have no interest in peace.

Consider terrorist organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. For them, cease-fires are held in contempt. They do not want to reason with their enemy. They are not interested in compromise. And they are not honest. These are sad facts, but they are facts nonetheless. Cease-fires are, at best, only tactical for them — an opportunity to regain strength and rearm after suffering a setback.

Hezbollah’s 1985 manifesto makes it clear that its attacks on Israel are not just about defending themselves against perceived Israeli aggression. It calls for the complete annihilation of Israel and pledges loyalty to Iran’s supreme leader, which is why it is designated by the United States and many other countries as a terrorist organization. Its goal is not peace under any circumstances or conditions with Israel. The Hamas Manifesto of 1988 clearly states, “Initiatives, and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Their goal is to eliminate not only Israel but Jews everywhere.

For groups like these and some countries, there is no interest in a peaceful solution to a conflict. They want the conflict. Their goal is the complete destruction of their perceived enemy. Nothing less is acceptable. So, when President Biden called recently for a cease-fire between Hezbollah and Israel in Lebanon and the Australian prime minister called for restraint “on both sides,” they are revealing a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the conflict. They believe that a pause in the conflict is always a good thing, but there is no interest in peace for Hezbollah or Hamas.

During World War II, Winston Churchill understood the threat of Nazism better than anyone. He knew one could not compromise with Adolf Hitler, which is why he said that nothing but “unconditional surrender” to the evil of Nazism was acceptable. Peace was the goal, but making deals with evil actors was folly.

In 2020, the United States agreed, in the hope that it would facilitate peace, to a cease-fire with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group that was responsible for the attacks on us on 9/11. As we began to withdraw our troops, al-Qaeda issued a statement that “war against the U.S. will be continuing on all fronts.” The cease-fire did not lead to peace.

Our obsession with cease-fires is easy to understand. We want peace, but we are horrified by war. However, genuine peace is only possible when both parties in a conflict want it. A pause in the conflict will not make progress possible. As sad as it is, sometimes we have no alternative but, in Hamlet’s words, to “take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them.”

To what extent was the Biden administration responsible for the events leading up to the attack by Hamas on October 7?

Before the war, the administration was busy trying to hammer out an unprecedented Israeli-Saudi normalization agreement while downplaying the Palestinian question.

President Biden’s efforts to conclude a landmark Israeli-Saudi peace deal were intended to build upon the Abraham Accords signed in Washington in 2020, sponsored by the Trump administration. The accords normalized diplomatic relations between the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Israel. Morocco and Sudan also joined the accords later.

Saudi Arabia’s crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), sought a hard bargain from the United States in exchange for the proposed deal with Israel. Riyadh demanded a mutual defense treaty with Washington and a green light for an ambitious civilian nuclear program, including the enrichment of uranium on Saudi soil.

Saudi Arabia’s re-establishing diplomatic relations with Iran, orchestrated by China in March 2023, raised alarm bells in the White House. Given the animosity between Washington, Tehran and Beijing, a trilateral Israeli/Saudi/American treaty would counter Iran’s regional ambitions and check China’s growing influence in the Middle East. Moreover, it was hoped that such a spectacular foreign policy breakthrough would pay off domestically by elevating Biden’s popularity before the elections.

Ultimately, were those formidable concessions, especially committing its military to defend an unpredictable Saudi royal autocracy, congruent with America’s vital national interests? Further, should the United States have sanctioned nuclear proliferation in the world’s most volatile region? Certainly not on both counts.

The Trump and Biden administrations were captivated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s vision of the pathway to peace with the Arab world. In his address to the U.N. General Assembly in September 2023, Netanyahu declared that “I’ve long sought to make peace with the Palestinians. But I also believe that we must not give the Palestinians a veto over new peace treaties with Arab states.” He continued, “The Palestinians could greatly benefit from a broader peace. They should be part of that process but they should not have a veto over it.”

The Saudi position on peace with Israel was outlined by the resolutions of the 2002 Arab League summit in Lebanon. It called for a complete Israeli withdrawal from all the territories it occupied in the 1967 war and for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel, however, rejected it as a basis for negotiations.

Once the White House approached Riyadh about a possible deal with Israel, the 2002 plan was no longer relevant. MBS dismissed the centrality of the Palestinian issue in any future deal as envisioned by Netanyahu.

Unquestionably, the Biden administration bought into this half-baked scheme. Publicly, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said that “normalization (with Israel) cannot come at the expense of the Palestinian cause.” 

Such a statement, however, was issued for public consumption only. It had no real policy relevance. There was no way that Netanyahu’s Israel would make any meaningful concessions to the Palestinians. The administration was aware of that, yet it went along with the proposed treaty while disregarding its potentially dire consequences.

This cynical triple deal was meant to satisfy each player’s interests; MBS, a ruthless dictator, exploited Washington’s anxiety about China and demanded an alliance; Biden aspired to re-establish a “pax Americana” in the Middle East; and Netanyahu planned to celebrate the “deal of the century” by making peace with the most prominent Arab state. This untenable diplomatic ménage à trois collapsed on October 7. Hamas’ leaders were fully aware that once an Israel-Saudi agreement was inked, Netanyahu’s goal to crush the Palestinians’ aspirations for an independent state would be realized with MBS’ blessing.

The attack by Hamas was partly an attempt to derail the Israeli-Saudi deal, and it succeeded in aborting it. Biden acknowledged this saying, “One of the reasons Hamas moved on Israel … they knew that I was about to sit down with the Saudis.”

“Guess what? The Saudis wanted to recognize Israel.”

After the October 7 attack, the administration’s vocal support of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel has become a core component of its conflict resolution strategy once the war is over.

Advocating peace and promoting a two-state solution is certainly laudable at this juncture. But given the deep-seated mutual hatred, the rejectionist disposition of both parties, the fresh scars left by the continuing violence and the humanitarian trauma in Gaza, peace is nothing short of a pipedream.

Still, Biden’s misguided diplomatic adventure, peddled by Netanyahu and cheered by MBS, has exposed America’s gullibility and ineptitude to pursue a coherent policy worthy of a superpower trying to steer clear of the deadly Middle East quicksand.

Please follow DVJournal on social media: Twitter@DVJournal or Facebook.com/DelawareValleyJournal