Strategic Tariff Policy:  Promoting Prosperity Among Allies and Containing Totalitarian Ambitions

By George Landrith, President, Frontiers of Freedom Institute

In an age of rising authoritarianism and economic interdependence, the question of how the United States should conduct its trade policy is not merely one of dollars and cents — it is a matter of national security, moral clarity, and global leadership. The current global system requires a differentiated approach: one that rewards cooperation and punishes coercion. While the U.S. should pursue zero or near-zero tariffs with allies and like-minded democracies, it must maintain — and in many cases increase — trade barriers with regimes that weaponize trade to undermine sovereignty, expand authoritarian influence, or use their profits from international trade to fund unjustified wars and aggression against their neighbors, or fund terrorism around the globe. 

The United States has long championed the virtues of free trade, and rightly so. When conducted among democratic allies who share a commitment to the rule of law, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, free trade is an engine of prosperity and peace. Lowering or eliminating tariffs among such nations not only boosts economic growth but strengthens the fabric of a free and open international order.

However, the same tools that build mutual prosperity among friends can be weaponized by authoritarian regimes bent on domination and exporting terrorism. Nations like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran have demonstrated a willingness to use trade, shipping, and economic leverage as instruments of coercion and control. China’s Belt and Road Initiative, for example, is not merely a trade plan — it is a strategy for global dominance that exploits economic dependence to bend nations to its will. In such cases, the United States must respond with strength and strategy. This means imposing tariffs and other trade barriers that blunt the power of economic warfare, incentivize American companies to re-shore or diversify their supply chains, and prevent our allies from falling prey to authoritarian chokeholds.

The complexity of the various goals with regard to trade policy — to promote economic growth and economic benefits among free nations, while at the same time making it more difficult for totalitarian regimes to fund wars against their neighbors, or fund and export terrorism, or to engage in economic warfare around the globe — a two-tiered approach to global trade policy is needed:  one that promotes zero tariffs among trusted allies to foster mutual prosperity and another that uses strategic tariffs against hostile regimes to counteract their imperial ambitions. By aligning trade policy with national values and strategic interests, America can build a stronger economy at home, a more resilient alliance abroad, and a freer world for generations to come.

The bottom line is that drawing from history, economics, and real-world case studies, it becomes clear that free trade among friends promotes peace and prosperity, while free trade with adversaries must be constrained to prevent exploitation, coercion, and imperialism. 

The Value of Free Trade Among Friends

The economic arguments for free trade are well-established. Free trade allows nations to specialize in areas of comparative advantage, leading to increased efficiency, lower costs, and greater prosperity. Historically, the lowering of trade barriers among Western nations has fueled growth and innovation. The post-World War II liberal economic order — anchored by institutions like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and its successor, the World Trade Organization (WTO) — helped the free world rebuild and flourish.

But free trade is more than an economic concept — it is both a practical and a political principle. When democratic nations trade freely, they are not only exchanging goods and services; they are reinforcing bonds of mutual trust and shared values. Trade among allies supports the development of robust middle classes, strengthens civil institutions, and reduces the incentives for conflict. In short, it helps build a peaceful international order.

Trade liberalization among democracies has produced decades of growth. Even a mediocre trade agreement like NAFTA, let to trade among the NAFTA parties growing from $290 billion in 1993 to over $1.2 trillion by 2021.1 The U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement (KORUS), in effect since 2012, increased American exports to South Korea by nearly 50% over its first five years.2

These economic gains are not confined to GDP. They reflect strategic alignment: shared standards, transparent institutions, respect for rule of law, and protection of intellectual property. By lowering barriers among friendly nations, the United States can encourage innovation, strengthen allies’ economies, and reduce global dependence on authoritarian states.

For these reasons, the United States should pursue near-zero tariffs with its closest allies: Canada, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO nations, Japan, South Korea, Morocco, Israel, and emerging partners like India, the Philippines, Azerbaijan, the United Arab Emirates, Vietnam, Saudi Arabia, and Indonesia. Such agreements would not only benefit American workers and consumers, but also create an economic bloc strong enough to withstand coercion from authoritarian regimes.

Tariffs as Strategic Tools Against Hostile Regimes

While free trade works well among friends, it can be disastrous when extended to adversaries who reject the rules of fair competition and wield economic tools to advance totalitarian aims. Authoritarian regimes view trade not as a partnership, but as a pressure point. For them, commerce is a tool of control, not cooperation. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have repeatedly used trade relationships to coerce neighbors, undermine global norms, fund unjustified threats and wars against their neighbors, export terrorism, and gain asymmetric advantages.

China, in particular, presents a sobering case study in how a nation can use trade and investment to undermine the global order. Under the guise of development, China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has ensnared dozens of countries in debt traps, forced infrastructure dependencies, and undermined local governance. Through control of ports, railroads, and shipping lanes, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is constructing a new kind of empire — one based not on traditional military conquest, but on strategic economic entanglement. In Africa, Latin America, Southeast Asia, and even parts of Europe, China now exerts influence not because of shared values or fair competition, but because of raw economic leverage.

Under the Belt and Road Initiative, China has funded roads, ports, and railways in over 100 countries. But these are not gifts — they are loans with strings. In Sri Lanka, the inability to service Chinese debt forced the government to hand over Hambantota Port in a 99-year lease.3 In Africa, Chinese-financed projects have brought accusations of neo-colonialism and environmental abuse.

Moreover, China routinely uses trade as leverage. After Australia called for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, China retaliated with tariffs and import bans on Australian wine, beef, and barley.4 Lithuania faced similar punishment after opening a Taiwanese representative office in Vilnius.5 These acts make it clear: Beijing views trade as a weapon.

For years, Europe’s reliance on Russian natural gas muted its response to Moscow’s aggression. Germany, the EU’s largest economy, built energy policy on the faulty premise that economic engagement with Russia would lead to liberalization. Instead, the Nord Stream pipelines gave Vladimir Putin both revenue and leverage. Only after the 2022 invasion of Ukraine did Europe begin to unwind this dangerous dependency.6

Iran uses its oil revenues to fund regional terror proxies like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis. Despite crippling sanctions, it continues to trade with sympathetic regimes — often through illicit channels — undermining regional stability. North Korea, though more isolated, uses its limited trade and cybercrime to finance its weapons programs which it uses to threaten many nations across the globe. Neither regime participates in global trade in good faith.

To ignore this would be dangerously naïve. The United States must treat trade with such regimes not as an economic opportunity, but as a strategic threat. Tariffs are one of the few tools that democratic nations can use to push back against this aggression without direct military conflict. By raising the cost of doing business with China, we can create disincentives for American companies to invest in a nation that seeks to control and ultimately undermine us.

The Dual Role of Tariffs: Economic Protection and Strategic Defense

Critics of tariffs often portray them as purely protectionist, economically harmful, or counterproductive. While blanket, arbitrary tariffs can indeed have negative effects, when used strategically — as levers of negotiation or tools of deterrence — they can be profoundly effective. 

Simply stated, traditional free market economic theory often opposes tariffs, arguing they distort markets and harm consumers. In a vacuum, that may be true. But in the real world, where states pursue geopolitical advantage through trade, tariffs are sometimes necessary tools of statecraft.

President Donald Trump demonstrated this with his bold trade policies, particularly his approach to China. President Donald Trump’s use of tariffs — particularly against China—demonstrated their value as leverage. By imposing Section 301 tariffs, the Trump administration targeted sectors implicated in intellectual property theft, forced technology transfer, and subsidies to state-owned enterprises.7 These measures prompted a reevaluation of China’s role in global supply chains.

With respect to China, Trump’s tariffs served a broader geopolitical purpose. By making it more costly to manufacture and import Chinese goods, these policies encouraged U.S. firms to move production either back to the United States or to more reliable trading partners such as Vietnam, India, Indonesia and the Philippines. This realignment is crucial. Not only does it reduce dependence on a hostile power, but it strengthens the economies of democratic allies and diversifies the global supply chain.

Tariffs also set the stage for renegotiated and improved trade deals.  For example, the tariffs Trump implemented and threatened allowed the U.S. to renegotiate NAFTA into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), a deal that ensured stronger protections for American labor, tighter enforcement of trade rules, and greater access to markets.8 Though controversial at the time, the use of tariffs produced tangible gains and began reorienting American trade policy toward strategic objectives.

Nonetheless, unilateral action can only go so far. There is a risk that, in response to U.S. tariffs, China may dump its excess products — steel, solar panels, batteries, clothing, and more — into allied markets at below-market prices, eroding industries in Europe, Asia, and Latin America. To prevent this, the United States must coordinate its tariff strategy with its partners. Just as NATO provides collective defense against military aggression, a multilateral trade strategy can defend against China’s economic coercion.

Strengthening the Economic Front of the Free World

Economic strength is a prerequisite for national security. A country that relies on hostile regimes for essential goods — such as pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, energy, or rare earth minerals — is not truly sovereign. America’s trade policy should reflect this reality.

But security does not require isolation. On the contrary, we should be deepening economic ties with nations that share our values and geopolitical interests. By reducing tariffs, increasing investment, and promoting innovation within this trusted circle, the United States can lead the creation of a new economic alliance — one based not on coercion, but on cooperation.

One benefit of strategic tariffs is the acceleration of reshoring and “friendshoring” — moving production out of adversarial countries and into domestic or allied economies. American firms, in response to tariffs and rising Chinese labor costs, have shifted operations to Vietnam, India, and Mexico.9 These shifts enhance supply chain resilience and reduce vulnerability to economic blackmail.

The U.S. should also invest in capacity-building programs to help allies develop their own industries and infrastructure. For example, redirecting supply chains away from China will only succeed if nations like India and Vietnam can scale production and logistics. A targeted, values-based foreign aid program focused on industrial development could go a long way in achieving this. In the long term, a world in which the United States and its allies supply each other, rather than being dependent on authoritarian powers, is not only more prosperous, but far more stable and secure.

Historical Lessons: The Cold War and Economic Containment

During the Cold War, the U.S. recognized the danger of economically empowering adversaries. The Coordinating Committee for Multilateral Export Controls (CoCom) restricted Western technology transfers to the Soviet bloc. The Marshall Plan, by contrast, aimed to revive Western Europe economically, creating a bulwark against communism. The logic was simple: economic strength undergirds political freedom.

Today’s authoritarian regimes should be met with the same moral clarity. Totalitarian powers should not be allowed to exploit free markets while suppressing their own people and threatening their neighbors.

Coordinating With Allies to Maximize Impact

Strategic tariffs are most likely effective if coordinated and implemented multilaterally. If the U.S. imposes tariffs on China, but Europe and Southeast Asia increase trade with Beijing, the effect is diluted or reversed. Worse, Chinese goods diverted from American markets may flood allied economies, undercutting their industries. Coordinated tariff and investment policies among allies would ensure that China cannot shift its exports to friendlier markets and undercut their domestic industries.

The U.S. must lead a global coalition of democracies with a unified trade strategy. This could include:

  • A Democratic Trade Alliance that lowers tariffs among member states.
  • A Digital Trade Charter to combat cyber-espionage and protect Intellectual Property as China is the leading thief of intellectual property.
  • Joint investment funds for critical infrastructure in Africa, Asia, and Latin America to counter the influence of the CCP’s Belt and Road Initiative designed to create international choke points for China’s advantage. 
  • Multilateral enforcement of labor and environmental standards, barring products made with forced labor or ecological abuse.

The United States should actively promote tariff-free or low-tariff trade among members of the free world. This would not only reward good behavior but also encourage more countries — especially emerging economies — to adopt liberal democratic principles as a path to economic prosperity. This framework would reward democratic governance and economic transparency, while isolating bad actors and evil doers. 

Addressing Critiques of Strategic Tariffs

Critics of tariffs sometimes raise valid concerns: higher prices for consumers, supply chain disruptions, and risks of retaliation. But these costs must be weighed against the strategic imperative of resisting authoritarian influence.

Moreover, some of these concerns are exaggerated. The initial inflationary effects of tariffs often level out as supply chains adjust. More importantly, the cost of dependence on authoritarian regimes — economic coercion, strategic vulnerability, and moral compromise — is far greater. For example, during World War II, I doubt anyone who valued freedom was arguing that the world should be engaging in free trade with Hitler’s Nazi regime. It makes no sense to empower those who once they obtain power will use it to enslave you and dominate you. 

Another critique is that tariffs hurt developing nations. But this is precisely why a coalition of democracies should step in to offer developing countries fairer alternatives — through investment, trade access, and technology transfer — without the strings of authoritarian loans like China does. We can build economic situations that provide profits for both sides of investment. But we can’t follow China’s model which is investment to grow only our ability to choke off other nations. 

President Trump’s trade and tariffs approach may not be absolutely perfect, but it is focused on not only helping America to be more prosperous and secure, but to work with our friends and allies to help them be more prosperous and secure, and at the same time making evil totalitarian regimes have a more difficult time funding their threats and violence against their own people and the rest of the world. This is a wise approach and hopefully he will be effective in putting these goals in practice.

The United States should always be promoting a values-based trade doctrine — one that recognizes the moral distinctions between democracies and dictatorships. Trade with friends should be open, robust, and tariff-free. Trade with adversaries must be conditional, limited, and cautious. 

Policymakers must also remain vigilant to prevent tariffs from being captured by domestic special interests or devolving into protectionism. Tariff policies should be flexible, data-driven, and tied to clear strategic goals.

This doctrine aligns with core American principles: liberty, fairness, and the rule of law. It also reflects strategic wisdom. No nation will benefit if a totalitarian power like China dominates global shipping lanes, 5G infrastructure, rare earth minerals, and AI platforms.

Economic policy is not neutral. It either reinforces democratic order or subsidizes authoritarian advance. The time for moral ambiguity is over.

Navigating the Risks and Trade-Offs

No policy is without costs. Strategic tariffs may lead to higher consumer prices in the short term. Shifting supply chains can be complex, and retaliatory tariffs from adversarial nations are always a possibility. These risks are real — but they are manageable, especially when weighed against the costs of inaction.

China’s long-term strategy is to make the world dependent on its exports, control key global infrastructure, and leverage these dependencies for political and military gain. To pretend otherwise is to engage in wishful thinking. Tariffs — when based on clear strategic principles — can act as both punishment and prevention. They can send a message: the United States will not fund its enemies, nor will it allow its allies to be economically strangled.

The ultimate goal of American trade policy should be to serve the interests of the American people while also defending the principles of freedom, democracy, and sovereignty abroad. A healthy domestic manufacturing base, strong alliances, and a diversified global supply chain are not mutually exclusive—they are mutually reinforcing.

High tariffs on China and other hostile regimes can accelerate a realignment of global trade away from authoritarian power centers. At the same time, zero or near-zero tariffs among allies will unleash innovation, lower costs, and build a foundation for collective security and prosperity.  In short, we must not treat all nations equally in trade policy—because not all nations share our values or our goals.

To ensure fairness and transparency, America’s tariff policy must be guided by a coherent framework — one that prioritizes national security, promotes democratic values, and seeks multilateral support. Tariffs should not be used impulsively, but rather as part of a long-term strategy of economic alignment with friends and economic decoupling from foes.

Conclusion

America’s trade policy must evolve to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Free trade remains a cornerstone of prosperity and international cooperation — when practiced among friends. But when weaponized by authoritarian regimes, trade becomes a tool of domination and dependence. The United States must therefore adopt a differentiated tariff strategy: one that promotes near-zero tariffs among democratic allies, and one that uses strategic trade barriers to contain and counteract totalitarian economic warfare.

This is not only an economic necessity but a moral imperative. The global future must not be shaped by the coercive power of tyrants, but by the shared prosperity of free peoples. In leading this effort, America can ensure that its trade policy not only protects its workers and industries but also safeguards the freedom and dignity of nations around the globe. We must act not just as a marketplace, but as a moral leader — building a world where liberty and prosperity go hand in hand.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Endnotes:

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

 1 Office of the United States Trade Representative. “USMCA: United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.” https://ustr.gov/usmca.

2  U.S. Department of Commerce. “U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement: Outcomes.” 2020.

3 Abi-Habib, Maria. “How China Got Sri Lanka to Cough Up a Port.” The New York Times, June 25, 2018.

4  Dziedzic, Stephen. “Australia hits back at China’s economic coercion.” ABC News (Australia), Dec. 2020. 

5  Karnitschnig, Matthew. “China punishes Lithuania for Taiwan ties.” Politico, December 2021. 

6  European Commission. “EU Imports of Energy Products – Recent Developments.” https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics.

7  Bown, Chad P., and Douglas A. Irwin. “The Trump Trade War: Motivations, Manifestation, and the Future.” Peterson Institute for International Economics, 2019. 

8  White House. “Fact Sheet: USMCA Agreement.” July 2020. 

9  Sharma, Ruchir. “The Manufacturing Shift Away from China.” Foreign Affairs, September/October 2023. 

Iran, Trump and American first foreign policy

We have been at war with Iran since 1979 only most Americans  have not realized it. From the time of Iranian mullahs taking our embassy staff hostage, to many different acts of terrorism against our soldiers beginning with the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Lebanon and during the war on terror, American soldiers died as result of Iranian efforts. Obama/Biden appeasement Iranian government giving them billions to spread their terrorism which included proxies in Lebanon and Gaza strip as well as Assad in Syria.   The reality is that Obama/Biden negotiations would have allowed Iran the bomb but in the case of Obama, long after he left office 

The entire basis of Obama/Biden was designed to create a balance of power between Iran,  Saudi’s and Israel but the absurdity of the policy could be seen in that Iran’s goal was not a balance of power but control over the Middle East and the destruction of Israel.  Brian Kennedy in America Mind observed about Iran, and American policy during the cold war, “The U.S. experience with Iran tells a different story. The Islamic Republic of Iran has been at war with the United States for almost half a century. Its enmity for the U.S. was born of our cooperation in the overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953 and the restoration of the Shah of Iran until his fall at the hands of the Iranian Revolution in 1979. The overthrow in 1953 was part of a series of Cold War considerations that the United States made with our British allies to check the influence of the Soviet Union in the Middle East and ensure Western access to oil…The Cold War, clearly misunderstood by so many young Americans today, was an existential contest between the United States and the Soviet Union. The United States was not engaged in the democracy promotion that came to characterize the discredited and failed efforts of the Global War on Terrorism. During the Cold War, the United States and our NATO allies engaged in ruthless competition with the Soviet Union and its allies, such as Communist China, North Korea, and the terrorist movements represented by the PLO in the Middle East and Communist/terrorist groups in Europe such as Baader-Meinhof, Black September, and the Red Brigades. Communist China supported these groups every bit as much as the SovietUnion did. It was a global struggle for primacy.”

Our involvement with Iran was part of winning the cold war and the collapse of the Shah and its replacement with Mullah’s theocracy changed our calculations in the Middle East  and the impact would go beyond the end of Cold war.  During  the 1980’s Iraq and Iranian were engaged in war for nearly 8 years in which millions died, and we actually supported Saddam against the Iranians   Hussain invasion changed the calculations as United States would not allow the invasion to stand and United States led coalition removed Hussian from Kuwait 

Muslim scholar Robert Spencer noted the difference between Iran and Iraq, “As a consistent opponent of our misguided misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan from the beginning, I’m here to tell you that Iran in 2025 is not Iraq in 2003. Back in March 2003, I argued in an article in the late, lamented Insight magazine that President Bush did not have a realistic plan for bringing democracy to the Middle East, and that insisting that the nations of the Middle East choose between Western-style democracy or the terror state would do more harm than good.…In that article, I wrote that “certainly he will find proponents of democracy in Iraq and elsewhere. But the primary opponents of these democrats will not be terrorists, but those who hold that no government has any legitimacy unless it obeys the Shariah. Even if they lose in the short run, they will not disappear as long as there are people who take the Koran and Islamic tradition seriously. And that spells trouble for any genuine democracy.” I hate to say, “I told you so,” but I don’t hate it all that much…And now, the idea that the Islamic regime in Iran could well be in its last days is giving a lot of people who style themselves “America First” the vapors. But Iran in 2025 is pretty much the polar opposite of Iraq in 2003. Saddam’s Iraq did not enforce Sharia; ; it was a secular state, which rankled many Muslim hardliners within the country. They were itching for a chance to impose Sharia and govern the country, or as much of it as they could wrench under their control, as a proper Islamic state, and when that chance came courtesy of the Americans, they grabbed it. The Islamic State, which in its heyday controlled a territory in Iraq and Syria larger than Britain, applied Islamic law with scrupulous exactitude and remorseless efficiency. The end result, as everyone knows, was far worse than what had been seen under Saddam.”

Melanie Phillips made a similar point with a British colonial, “In London, a British colonel told me that “Ariel Sharon has his hand up Bush’s back”—and was astonished when I replied that Israel had told the United States it was Iran, not Iraq, which posed the greatest danger.”  Iraq war may have been the wrong war at wrong time with the wrong country.

Victor Davis Hanson observed about Trump policy toward Iran and in general, “Trump’s past shows that he never claimed that he was either an ideological isolationist or an interventionist. He was and is clearly a populist-nationalist: i.e., what in a cost-to-benefit analysis is in the best interests of the U.S. at home and its own particular agendas abroad? Trump did not like neo-conservatism because he never felt it was in our interests to spend blood and treasure on those who either did not deserve such largess, or who would never evolve in ways we thought they should, or whose fates were not central to our national interests.”    Hanson point is that Trump is not an isolationist but believes that our interest needs to be considered. 

In the past, I have discussed the Cap Weinberger thesis on the conditions in which American go to war.  For advocate of an America’s First foreign policy might begin reviewing the former Secretary of Defense Cap Weinberger six rules for engagement.  The principles were:

1. Forces should not be committed unless the action is vital to national interest.

2. Forces should be committed wholeheartedly with the intention of winning – or they should not be committed at all (No half-hearted commitment).

3. Forces should be committed with clearly defined political and military objectives.

4. The use of force should be the last resort (after all diplomatic initiatives have been exhausted).

5. The relationship between objectives and the force committed should be continually reassessed and adjusted if necessary.

6. Before committing forces abroad (in foreign countries) there should be some reasonable assurance of public support.

Casper Weinberger set these principles in the aftermath of the Vietnam war in which America was divided and there was serious question on how the war was conducted, so he set in principle ideas that political leader needs to consider.  In 1984, two events occurred, one in which 240 Marines were killed as result of a suicide bomber in Beirut and the second, the invasion of Grenada in which United States removed a Marxist government that overthrew another leftist government and supported by Cuban forces.

The Beirut attack was part of an ill-defined peace keeping mission in Lebanon and eventually Reagan, left Lebanon as oppose to getting sucked into an endless morose and in Grenada, United States went into with overpowering force, and easily removed the Cuban forces in an island in our backyard, the Caribbean. 

The first Gulf War was influenced by this principle as United States and their alliance went into Kuwait with overwhelming force, defeated the Iraqi army easily before ending the war.  And Bush administration went to the American people and Congress to gain approval to use force if diplomacy failed in persuading Hussein to leave Kuwait.  After the failure of diplomacy, the first Gulf War commenced. 

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries.  From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan.  The expanded mission after the second war in Iraq ended in failure.  Robert Spencer predicted the failure of this mission and while the initial war in Afghanistan was designed to go after those responsible for 9/11 and the initial campaign succeeded in that but the movement toward pushing Afghanistan toward democracy proved problematic and Bush involved us in two wars at same time.  

The second Gulf War and the war on terror began with these principles but after the initial victory, the United States expanded upon the objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan to reinstitute democratic government in both countries.  From there, United States engaged in long term engagement that ended in failure in Afghanistan. 

An Americas First policy begins identifying what is in our national interest and what is not. Americans no longer want to be involved in endless wars without any end game, but they will follow defined goals that are attainable and convinced in our national interest.  Reagan exercised a modest foreign policy with the objective of winning the Cold War. After the cold war, we found ourselves in unique position as the World leading superpower after the Soviet Empire collapsed and China has yet to be the power they are now.  George W Bush campaigned on a modest foreign policy and even questioned nation building in Haiti but after 9/11, things change and the strategy as Bush administration decided including nation building to reverse future Islamist terrorist states. Just as Bush criticized Clinton administration for his nation building efforts in Haiti, his national building efforts to build more stable nations in the Middle East failed, certainly in Afghanistan and Biden withdrawal proved to be disastrous in allowing the Taliban back in power and Putin took this as a sign of weakness and a license to begin the invasion

What is an American first foreign policy?  If China is the main threat, then what strategy needs to be followed?  How do decoupling ourselves from China and tariffs fit in the strategy?  What alliances need to be set up and the condition of those alliances that will increase our own national interest?  What would the role of Europe and NATO play and what about our relations with India fit into our national interest?  What should our position be in Europe, and do we allow the Europeans manage the bulk of the defense of Europe against future Russian incursion?  How do we deal with Central and South America?  I could go on, but Weinberger principle gives Americas firsters a framework to build from. 

Victor Davis Hanson concluded, “So-called, optional, bad-deal, and forever wars in the Middle East and their multitrillion-dollar costs would come ultimately at the expense of shorting Middle America back home. However, Trump’s first-term bombing of ISIS, standing down “little rocket man”, warning Putin not to invade Ukraine between 2017-21, and killing off Qasem Soleimani, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, and many of the attacking Russian Wagner Group in Syria were certainly not Charles Lindberg isolationism but a sort of Jacksonian—something summed up perhaps as the Gadsen “Don’t tread on me”/ or Lucius Sulla’s “No better friend, no worse enemy” . Trump’s much critiqued references to Putin—most recently during the G7, and his negotiations with him over Ukraine—were never, as alleged, appeasement (he was harder in his first term on Putin than was either Obama or Biden), but art-of-the-deal/transactional (e.g., you don’t gratuitously insult or ostracize your formidable rival in possible deal-making, but seek simultaneously to praise—and beat—him.) Similarly, Churchill initially saw the mass-murdering, treacherous Stalin in the way Trump perhaps sees Putin, someone dangerous and evil, but who if handled carefully, occasionally granted his due, and approached with eyes wide open, could be useful in advancing a country’s realist interests—which for Britain in 1941 was for Russia to kill three-quarters of Nazi Germany’s soldiers, and, mutatis mutandis, for the U.S. in 2025 to cease the mass killing near Europe, save most of an autonomous Ukraine, keep Russia back eastward as far as feasible, and in Kissingerian-style derail the developing Chinese and Russian anti-American axis. Trump was never anti-Ukraine, but rather against a seemingly endless Verdun-like war in which after three years neither side had found a pathway to strategic resolution—a war from the distance fought between two like peoples, one with nuclear weapons, and on the doorstep of Europe.”

Trump policy is not isolationist but based on restricting the use of military only in need to defend our national interest nor is he interested in spreading “democracy” but accept countries choice of government as long they do not impact our national interest.  He stated to the Saudis, ”And it’s crucial for the wider world to note this great transformation has not come from Western interventionalists or flying people in beautiful planes giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs. No, the gleaming marvels of Riyadh and Abu Dhabi were not created by the so-called nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits like those who spent trillions and trillions of dollars failing to develop Kabul, Baghdad, so many other cities… Instead, the birth of a modern Middle East has been brought by the people of the region themselves, the people that are right here, the people that have lived here all their lives — developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions, and charting your own destinies in your own way. It’s really incredible what you’ve done.”

Trump view is that countries need to find their own path and as long as those paths don’t involved threatening the United States  Trump view that each region or countries need to find their own way and we can’t impose our views or system upon others.  As Brian Kennedy noted about our alliance in World War II  included the Soviet Union and , we allied ourselves with unsavory countries to defeat the Soviet Empire, but also many countries like South Korea found their own path to both economic and political freedom as we aided the process but not start the process for it was their people who started the process and move toward democracy on their own.

Postscript,

As I was completing  this piece, Trump bombed the nuclear facilities and now we will see where we go  The Weinberger doctrine would limit Trump responses beginning with understanding the limits of what the United States can do.  Trump is not interested in boots on the ground, but Trump administration needs to be prepared for Iranians counterattack including shutting down the Strait of Hormuz or terrorist activities in the Unted States with undetected cells. 

Trump had a good beginning a limited objective, destroy Iranian nuclear facilities and as for regime change, it would be good if the mullahs were replaced but the United States can not be involved instituting regime change nor have boots on the ground. Iranian people themselves must change their government.   Trump has made his feeling known on this.

Iran Israel and Obama/Biden

The Israel attack on Iran and the subsequent Iranian counterattack, can be traced to Barack Obama policies toward Iran. A policy based on the idea that Iran could be a constructive force in the Middle East and a counter force to our alliance with Israel. Stupidity.

Obama and Biden allowed Iran access to billions which went to expanding their terrorist network throughout Middle East and when Iranian people rebelled in 2009, Obama took the regime side. And when Trump had Iran on the economic rope in 2020, Biden open the spigot.

The October 7th attack was a direct result of Obama/Biden policies.

The little secret is that Trump had to clean up the Obama mistakes of his administration and now Trump is cleaning up Biden mess. A major European war in Central Europe, the Middle East mess and China on the march in the Western Pacific that is what Trump inherited.

Israeli took Iran situation in their own hands but there is enough evidence that United States knew what was up and didn’t object. Trump did his peace talk but makes you wonder if this was designed a fake since Trump knew that Iran would not give up their nuclear weapons.

We are the verge of expanded war in Europe and Middle East, but the key issue is Trump foreign policies are able to pull us back from the brink but don’t forget one thing, this was Obama and Biden doing!

Violence is a Leftist tactic

January 6th, 2021, which was the only major riot started by the left over the previous 12 months.  The Left, including members of Black Lives Matter (BLM) and Antifa, committed almost all political violence in the U.S. in 2020.  Billions of dollars of property were destroyed and as many as 30 people died, including former St. Louis police chief David Dorn, murdered by thugs who filmed his death.   Violence has become part of the Left strategy in promoting their cause and destabilizing America.

Damages between May 26 and June 8,2020 resulted in as much as two billion dollars paid in insurance claims.  In Minneapolis alone, 1500 buildings were destroyed.  Minneapolis continues to be the costliest civil disorder in 2020-21 and much of the damage took place in minority communities on whose behalf they rioted for.  Violent riots in Kenosha, Wisconsin left 50 million dollars in damages and nearly 60 buildings destroyed.  The biggest damage occurred in the city’s most diverse areas that included where most minorities lived.  Like Chicago and Minneapolis, minority areas were ere the hardest hits in the Kenosha riots.

Many Black Lives Matter and Antifa activists did not really care about the damage they cause since buildings and goods aw just property—and not their property.    Vicky Osterweil, author of In Defense of Looting, told NPR that it was morally justified for Black people to rob stores because “The very basis of property is derived through violence and through Black oppression…Looting strikes at the heart of property, of whiteness, and the police.” What these Democrat-sanctioned riots did was to destroy businesses that drive the economies of these urban centers, blocking  chances for the poor to climb the economic ladder.

Much of the rioters engaged in looting claimed Black Lives Matter as their rationale for destroying the inner-city communities they claim they are supporting. In the aftermath of the nationwide protests following the death of George Floyd as Kamala Harris told Stephen Colbert, about protesters, “They’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. This is a movement, I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone beware because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before Election Day and they’re not going to stop after Election Day. And everyone should take note of that… They’re not going to let up and they should not.”

In 2022, there were at least 38 acts of vandalism in art museums dealing with climate change according to one study and another noted  dataset saw 89 blockade, vandalism, and harassment events happening 13 countries. 

After Roe v Wade overturn, within short period of time witnessed over 100 acts of vandalism and arson on Catholic churches and pregnancy crisis centers and these attacks continued into 2024 and as one article in the Tampa Times noted,  “However, despite the rash of attacks against churches and pregnancy centers two years after the fall of Roe, the  Biden Justice department has done little to also prosecute the individuals responsible.”

The recent murder of  two Israeli jews highlighted the violence, and protest by pro-Palestinian groups and after a serious of college “protest”, acts of intimidation directed at Jewish students,  blockade of traffic and now murder are showing a rise of antisemitism throughout the world and in United States, most of this coming from the left and the Democratic Party John Hinderaker of Powerline  observed,  “Tom Wolfe’s much-quoted adage is that “the dark night of fascism is always descending on America but always lands in Europe.” In a similar vein, one can say that the authorities and the press are always looking for “domestic terrorism” on the right, but in fact, it consistently comes from the left…The latest left-wing terrorist is Elias Rodriguez. Rodriguez was obsessed with Israel and chanted “Free, free Palestine” after murdering Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, just as if he were participating in a demonstration at Columbia. He left behind a self-justification on Twitter in which he called Israel a “genocidal apartheid state,” a sentiment that could have come from a number of members of Congress. Israel is so evil, according to Rodriguez, that “to many Americans,” murdering Israelis is “in some funny way, the only sane thing to do.” These protests have happened in 45 states and on nearly 140 college campus, and many of these “protests” included vandalism plus blocking traffic throughout the country 

From beginning of the first Trump administration, we have seen thousands of riots, vandalism, blockade of traffic,  and deaths resulting by the left. You would be hard pressed to find on your hands the number of the riots caused by the right, the first being in Charlotteville in 2017 and January 6th in 2021. Many leftist activist and Democratic politicians have tolerated these acts of violence and it should be noted that the organizer of the Charlotteville riot voted for Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024. Violence is now a recognized and tolerated tactics of the Left. 

Tapper Real Game

Jake Tapper book has the following goals, first being to put him and others who help cover this up to be absolve of any journalistic wrong doing. Considering how the media help cover this up, Tapper goal is to rewrite history by saying reporters were duped. The second is to delegitimize Trump’s victory by saying by waiting as long as Biden did to leave, it gave very little time to Kamala to campaign. The reality is simple, Tapper and others knew Biden’s condition but refuse to report it. One journalist admitted he was told by a cabinet member two years earlier in 2022, that Biden needed not to run in 2024.I can’t believe that Tapper didn’t have similar sources telling him the same thing.

From the Russian collusion hoax, the Hunter Biden lap top and this, the media have consistently got big stories wrong or lied about the big stories Tapper is admitting either he is a liar or simply not a very good reporter For me, Biden stayed the candidate after that debate performance, he would have been slaughtered and lost by a bigger margin than even Kamala Harris. The media would have reported that Biden lost because he was not physically capable. Kamala on the other hand received more than double what Trump brought in and was the sitting Vice President and had the media on her side. This was a referendum on Biden/Harris years and voters decided they were ready for change. Tapper goal is to make the case that Biden allowed Trump to win by waiting and not because of Harris connection to the Biden’s year.

Tapper is merely shifting the blame of Trump victory on Biden’s and his inside team. He has not even bothered to blame Harris or key members of the administration since they obviously knew what was going on. Bottom line is that Tapper rewriting of history should not be allowed to stand. Tapper and the media were not fooled by Biden’s handler and knew what was going on. Members of the administration and those on capitol hill knew what was going on but they refuse to blow the whistle until it was too late

Canada Thoughts

David Solway of PJ Media observed about the new Canadian Prime Minister, “As a result of the Liberal victory and the installation of Mark Carney as prime minister of Canada in the April 28, 2025, election, the country is now speeding down the Trans-Canada highway to certain destruction. Carney, of course, is a global financier, a promoter of centralized government control, a lover of censorship, and a climate change apostle who doubles as a trustee of the World Economic Forum and the United Nations Special Envoy on Climate Change and Finance. He carries three passports, Canadian, Irish, and British, and has spent the last decade out of Canada, which obviously makes him the ideal candidate for the prime ministership, Canadian to the bone.”

As mentioned on the weekly report, the globalist trans national candidate played the nationalist card, saying he will protect Canada from Trump and not allowed Trump from annexing Canada. Of course he is now looking to the EU for his salvation. The key element is that Carne is supporter of zero sum and the province with the fossil fuels has been granted approval by the premier to have a vote on whether they want to stay part of Canada. So Carney now has to deal with a wealthy province sitting on top of oil and natural gas with a net zero sum.