Describing this presidential campaign as politically inconvenient, politically incorrect and counterintuitive would already be an understatement. But here’s another surprise to add to the mix: Despite their efforts to paint one another as polar opposites when it comes to foreign policy, the two front-runners — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump — hold positions on key issues that may be closer than many people imagine.
At first glance, such a claim would seem stunning. After all, Trump likes politically provocative one-liners and slogans — talking tough about U.S. adversaries while lambasting allies for alleged free-riding. Even his more measured foreign policy speech this week was filled with Trumpisms. In contrast, although Clinton is more emotional than her cooler, detached former boss, she still speaks in much more wonkish foreign policy terms. Put simply, in terms of rhetoric and style, the two candidates seem as distant as Mars and Venus.
And then there is the vastly differing experience on foreign policy. Trump has of course dismissed Clinton as the worst secretary of state in the history of the United States. But while she won’t be remembered among America’s finest or most gifted in modern times — see Henry Kissinger, George Shultz and James Baker — let’s not forget that she still has a deep knowledge of both the process and substance of foreign policy. When it comes to the affairs of state, she’s likely to forget more about international relations than Trump will ever know.
Trump suggests this dearth of experience doesn’t matter, and that his natural negotiation skills will shine through. But while nobody should dismiss or trivialize Trump’s negotiating talents in the real estate business, the art of the deal in New York isn’t quite the same as the one in the Middle East. Sure, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is partly a real estate deal, but it’s much more complex than negotiating hotel deals in Atlantic City. It requires toughness — both Kissinger and Baker demonstrated the capacity to walk away. But it also requires enormous patience, sensitivity and self-control, all qualities Trump has yet to demonstrate.
Still, campaigning on foreign policy isn’t the same as implementing foreign policy. The first permits you, to some extent, to talk as if you were living in a galaxy far, far away. Back on Earth, though, presidents have to operate not in a rhetorical, perfect world, but one that often offers only imperfect choices.
And it is this reality that could mean we see the positions of Clinton and Trump converge on some key issues, namely how to deal with Iran, Russian President Vladimir Putin, and ISIS. Trump may not have an extensive track record, and his campaign largely so far deals in generalities. But what he has said so far, combined with the bad options he’s likely to face, suggest much common ground. Indeed, in a cruel irony, both these candidates might actually end up working within President Barack Obama’s foreign policy parameters.
Iran
Like all Republican presidential candidates, Trump has been scathing about the nuclear deal. Unlike his chief rival Ted Cruz, though, Trump has not threatened to rip it up on day one, instead saying he would renegotiate it. Clinton, meanwhile, has defended the accord and even taken credit for it, though she promises to be tough on enforcement. Both have promised never to allow Iran to get a nuke, and to be tough on Tehran’s regional behavior. Bottom line: Barring some fundamental transgression by Iran, both will likely carry on Obama’s signature legacy because neither has a viable alternative.
Putin
Both Trump and Clinton support negotiating with Russia. This is particularly the case with Trump, who believes he can figure out a better way — master dealmaker that he fashions himself to be — to deal with the Russian leader. Clinton supports talks with Russia to reduce the number of nuclear weapons. She also defends the reset, though argues for more pressure. Yet it is hard to imagine either candidate being prepared to forcefully confront Russia in Syria and raise the costs of Putin’s support of Bashar al-Assad. Remember, Clinton supports the (failing) Syrian ceasefire and the U.N.-sponsored Geneva process. And given Trump’s bromance with Putin, he’s likely to look for ways to deal with Putin on Syria, too. Bottom line: Neither is looking for a fight with Putin.
ISIS
Clinton has laid out a conceptual plan that appears to be very close to President Obama’s current policy: Avoid nation-building and the deployment of large numbers of ground forces. Trump has been all over the map on Syria, from sending in as many as 30,000 troops to deploying Americans quietly. But he appears to reject the nation-building option. Bottom line: Both will continue to see ISIS as a counterterrorism problem rather than a potential all-out war, and both want to avoid a major U.S. military commitment in Syria. That said, if an ISIS-directed terror attack like those seen in Paris and Brussels occurred in the United States, it might force both to change their calculations.
Israel and the Palestinians
Both Clinton and Trump have taken very similar positions, promising to invite Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the United States early in their administrations. Both have also pledged to upgrade the U.S.-Israeli relationship. And interestingly, Trump has expressed a consistent interest in negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace. In fact, there are times when Trump talks about the neutrality required to be a successful negotiator that he sounds like he could be a President Clinton’s special envoy on the subject. Bottom line: Under either Clinton or Trump, relations with the Netanyahu government would likely improve, initially. But within a year, the new American president and Netanyahu can be expected to be annoying the hell out of one another.
The inconvenient and painful reality for whoever is sitting in the Oval Office — Republican or Democrat — is that they will confront a world of headaches and root canals that pose immense challenges to the United States and yet offer little in the way of good policy option cures. As a result, the answer to the question of who might be a better foreign policy president may be less about comparing policies and more about who has the right experience, judgment and temperament to deal with the cruel and unforgiving world in which America operates.