Riviera (February 7, 2025)

Welcome to Home & Away. The good news is that Dry January has come and gone. The not-so-good news is, well, the subject of much of this week’s newsletter.

Bibi Finds Joy

Israel’s Prime Minister was the first foreign visitor to be invited to the Trump White House since the inauguration. He arrived a happy man given the outcome of the election here and his own improved approval ratings at home—and he left even happier, as his host doubled down on previous comments suggesting that the inhabitants of Gaza would be better off elsewhere.

More specifically, Trump declared that “The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip…We’ll own it.” He did not rule out sending American troops, saying “We’ll do what is necessary.” Palestinians would be resettled (presumably forcibly, if need be) elsewhere, although some would be allowed back to live among people from all over the world in a rebuilt Gaza that would become, in Trump’s words, the “Riviera of the Middle East.” White House officials attempted to walk back Trump’s comments, saying U.S. troops and dollars would not be required and that any resettlement would only be temporary. But there was no walking away from the proposal itself. Indeed, officials said Gaza would be handed over to the United States by Israel once the fighting ended. But Gaza is not Israel’s to give and there is no prospect that the fighting would end if any of this were to be implemented.

As the saying goes, you couldn’t make this up. It is easy to ridicule and dismiss Trump’s proposal as the non-starter it is, but his ideas are also dangerous. They have already been rejected by Palestinians of every stripe, by Arab governments, including our closest regional partners, and by European allies. The proposal, which contravenes international law, makes it more difficult for Saudi Arabia and Israel to find mutually acceptable common ground. Indeed, the Kingdom released a statement almost immediately after Trump’s remarks and explicitly reiterated that it is unwavering in its demand that a Palestinian state be a condition of normalizing relations with Israel. Trump’s proposal will work to strengthen the hands of radicals in the Palestinian world and the far right in Israel. And it will make it even more difficult for the U.S. government to carry out effective diplomacy and see that the Gaza ceasefire deal is implemented in full. Jordan is particularly vulnerable, be it to a U.S. aid cutoff if it refuses to go along with Trump’s plan, or to demographic and political destabilization if it does. The Israeli right will run with this as a model for the West Bank and will complicate any efforts by this or any government there to engage in traditional, i.e., realistic, diplomacy.

Backers of this new approach argue current policy has failed for some time and it is necessary to think outside the box. But this misses the point that current policy is failing because, among other things, the United States has not done nearly enough over the years to promote steps that would increase prospects for progress and rein in those that undermine it. Donald Trump has the backing at home and the standing in Israel to move things in the right direction. But this will require that he approach the region not as a real estate developer but as a political leader. We will know soon enough if he is capable of doing so.

The Flood

We are not quite three weeks into the second Trump administration, which means there are still some 205 weeks to come. Even so, we have already learned quite a bit, much of which could remain instructive going forward. What follows is an initial take.

The default approach of the president here at Home is action, be it on DEI, deportations, girls’ and women’s sports, or return to office policies. We are seeing a flood of activity, beginning with the use of executive orders on a scale without true precedent. The same holds for pardons. Impoundment is being practiced with near impunity, as spending embedded in legislation passed by Congress and signed into law is being cut or eliminated, and seemingly along with it, Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Also different is the use of IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, to justify tariffs. The unstated premise seems to be to do as much as you can as fast as you can—leaving opponents unsure of how to respond or what to focus on—and to deal with any legal and political pushback later.

Speaking of Congress, it only seems to figure in the administration’s thinking when it comes to getting its nominees confirmed. And even then, Republicans in Congress have shown almost no willingness to provide a real check on Trump’s ambitions, as with one exception (Matt Gaetz, an unserious nomination that never came close to a vote) Trump has managed to get his picks confirmed despite the manifest lack of qualifications of several of them. Maybe I’ve missed it, but Republicans seem to be more than prepared to accept that their prerogatives are being ignored. I expect the day will arrive when they may come to rue this behavior if it is exercised by a Democrat occupant of the Oval Office.

In the domain of Away, Trump’s default approach is coercion rather than persuasion. As Colombia learned the hard way, there is very little, if any, attempt to bring others around to the U.S. position by way of consultation and negotiation. What there tends to be instead is a stated, often maximalist, U.S. position coupled with threats of penalties if it is not embraced.

Economic tools—above all tariffs or the threat of tariffs—are the preferred approach over military measures. The one limited military action thus far was an airstrike against ISIS operatives in Somalia.

Economic tools are being threatened or used against friends and foes alike. Actually, they are being used against friends more if only because we have, by design, more economic interaction with them. But the corollary to this observation is that being a friend, i.e., an ally or strategic partner, of the United States counts for little and could actually make that country more economically exposed and vulnerable. That Trump’s tariff announcement last weekend included a 25 percent increase for Mexico and Canada but only a 10 percent increase for China is just the latest example. Over the long run this treatment of friends will lead them to diversify their strategic and economic portfolios to become less dependent on a United States that is not only less predictable but also less loyal. Stability, freedom, prosperity, and U.S. influence will all decline as a result. Yet there is no visible concern among Republicans over this loss.

It is impossible not to be struck by the hubris of it all. Taking Greenland. The Panama Canal. Canada. And now Gaza. Trump 2.0 is grandiose in his aims. History matters not. Nor do the desires of others. We already have four candidates for the 51^st state in less than three weeks. Somewhere someone is surely designing the new American flag.

I cannot discern much of anything in the way of a traditional, formal policy process, one in which the situation is carefully assessed, relevant history introduced, options developed and weighed, risks and costs factored in, tradeoffs debated, and implementation considered. It is easy to get things wrong when policy is made in such a haphazard way. This account of how the president arrived at his Gaza “policy” is equal parts instructive and unsettling.

The new administration is already more radical than I imagined. I am not surprised by the emphasis on fossil fuel extraction even though we were already the world’s largest producer of oil and gas under President Biden. “Drill Baby Drill” was after all a common refrain throughout Trump’s campaign. But the hostility to renewables (above all wind) and green energy is something else—especially as it will leave this country without adequate electricity and open up new opportunities for China. Trump seems not to care that this will hurt U.S. companies that have already made significant investments in green energy to stay competitive in global markets.

There is as well an assault on the U.S. government and its workforce that goes way beyond weeding out DEI, wokeness, and any waste and fraud. What we are witnessing is the deliberate gutting of federal capacity. The depopulation of swaths of the existing workforce now even extends to critical national security agencies such as the FBI and CIA. This country faces numerous difficult challenges at home and abroad. For years and possibly decades to come we will lack the experienced, professional workforce we need. What is being done will make Americans less secure domestically and internationally.

Take USAID. What is happening there is nothing less than unilateral disarmament. Innocent lives will be lost, whether to disease or starvation. China will gain access and influence as it fills the void we are leaving. America’s reputation will take a major hit. Countries around the world will be more likely to fail, benefitting terrorists and drug cartels in the process. Legitimate reform could have taken place without the blanket freeze on programs and the massive reduction in workforce. What’s more, the administration’s unilateral efforts to shutter USAID raise serious legal concerns as well. USAID is an independent agency and eliminating it or merging it into the State Department without Congress’ authorization is unconstitutional. Setting this sort of precedent could leave other agencies vulnerable to Trump and Elon Musk’s whims.

Musk—an unaccountable, often intemperate, unelected, walking and talking conflict of interest with no prior service in government and a strange affinity for the far right in Germany and beyond—is both a cause and a symptom of what is wrong. To the best of my knowledge, he has expressed no appreciation or understanding of what already exists. You would be hard-pressed to know this government played a decisive role in winning World War II and in ensuring that the Cold War stayed cold and ended peacefully on terms favorable to Western values and interests. Or in reversing, with minimal American casualties, Iraqi aggression against Kuwait. Or in delivering civil rights to millions of citizens, raising living standards, and extending life spans both domestically and globally. Or in fostering the world’s largest, most dynamic economy, one that is the envy of much of the world. Yes, our government is also flawed and regularly makes big mistakes, but fixing it more than it is broken and, in some cases, dismantling it entirely, risks generating problems far greater than those we have.

On foreign policy, there has been and continues to be a large focus on this hemisphere, but more in the way of coercion than cooperation. That said, Trump also backed down quickly from his trade war when both Mexico and Canada pushed back by announcing tariffs of their own and U.S. markets reacted poorly. There was no reason to start a trade war as flows of drugs and people across both borders were way down. It all appeared to be performative more than anything else. Indeed, many of the concessions he touted from Mexico and Canada were policies that had already been agreed to.

Farther afield, Trump has shown a welcome toughness toward Russia that few expected. My sense is that he is not happy that it is Putin who stands in the way of a ceasefire in Ukraine. As for China, the new administration is all over the place, as evidenced by its handling of the TikTok matter. We will see what Trump and co. choose to do in response to China’s carefully calibrated response to U.S. tariffs. My sense is Trump will look for a way to settle on the economic front as he, more than some of his advisors, seems keen on establishing a good working relationship with Xi Jinping and cares little for the geostrategic elements of the U.S.-China relationship. The question here is what a potential deal with China looks like. The devil may truly be in the details.

When it comes to U.S. policy toward Iran, President Trump properly stated that Iran cannot be allowed to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. But interestingly, he called for a “verified nuclear peace agreement,” making clear his preference that U.S.-Iran policy goals be achieved through diplomacy (backed by economic sanctions that would be lifted if an accord materialized) rather than military attack. Unlike his Gaza plan, this makes perfect sense.

One final thought. With few exceptions, the Democrats (who in no small part are responsible for the fact there is a second Trump presidency) are missing in action. Or, more accurately, inaction. They are clearly on their back foot and seem caught off guard by this shock and awe campaign. What the Democrats should do vis-à-vis the onslaught described above, and what they should do to improve the chances they become competitive again in 2026 and 2028, will be the subject of an upcoming newsletter. But a spoiler alert. The problem is not with messaging. Believing that is a recipe for not just remaining in opposition but fading as a serious national political party. It is about the message.

As always, some links to click on. And feel free to share Home & Away.

---

Richard Haass in the news

Wednesday, February 5: Morning Joe (Why Trump's Gaza Talk 'Flies in the Face of how Trump Views Foreign Policy')

Thursday, February 6: Squawk Box (President Trump’s Gaza Takeover Proposal Makes the Palestinian Problem Worse, Says Richard Haass)

Thursday, February 6: You Decide With Errol Louis (Charting Foreign Policy in Trump’s Second Term)

Thursday, February 6: Breaking News With Katie Couric (Why Donald Trump’s Plan to Take Over Gaza Is “A Truly Radical Idea”)

Check out The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens