At first glance, the current White House tumult paints a troubling picture of a capricious leader with flawed judgment. Many political observers believe Trump was shooting from the hip when he picked a fight with Congress over the border wall and announced a pullout from Syria, which led to the resignation of Defense Secretary James Mattis and to a partial federal shutdown for the next several days.
Having said all that, in the grand scheme of things, both decisions underscore a systematic and consistent policy on Afghanistan, Syria and Mexico. On all three, Trump's actions have been a function of the core convictions that he campaigned on.
The decision to withdraw troops from Syria (and reportedly Afghanistan) is a manifestation of his deep misgivings of foreign interventions without a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.
Trump has long articulated a vision of reduced American presence on the world stage. While he is willing to let the U.S. take the back seat in noncrucial theaters, he is loath to the idea of continued multilateralism and collective security through defense pacts.
Trump disavowed the notion that America has to provide a defense shield for its allies to deter any aggression. This can explain his decision to disengage from Syria and Afghanistan and Mattis' decision to step down.
Mattis, after all, is a poster boy for the old paradigm that the U.S. must hold on to its alliances, mainly NATO, and has considered these alliances as paramount to its national security long after the Cold War. Unlike Mattis, Trump believes this view is anachronistic and wants a rapprochement with the Kremlin.
But this neo-isolationist posture doesn't mean Trump has decided to end all of overseas engagements. In fact, Trump has shown time and again that he is willing to use force to establish deterrence and assert U.S. power when necessary – both against the axis of evil and against friends.
Washington has recently shown this resolve vis-à-vis North Korea, displaying brinkmanship in the face of its nuclear ambitions. It has also been aggressively enforcing crippling economic sanctions against Iran.
In the Israeli context, the U.S. has also been willing to challenge long-held paradigms that turned conventional wisdom on its head (including its recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital). Thus, it is unlikely that Trump will leave Israel in the lurch in the face of a growing Iranian threat.
His insistence on having a wall along the Mexican border is a central tenet of his hardline view on illegal immigration. His willingness to spend political capital, including having a shutdown, underscores his tactical approach - not to the strategic posture he has assumed from day one.
Thus, time will tell whether this latest feud with Congress will end like the big shutdown 23 years ago. That shutdown paved the way for then-President Bill Clinton's re-election.
