American foreign policy has become very complicated. The continued open support for the Israel that pursues fascist formats of policy towards Palestine and other Arab nations had undermined US credibility, reputation and influence abroad. World now views USA as untrustworthy nation as it still sides with Zionist criminal regime and shields al its crimes  against  humanity and its prolongation of terror wars as well as occupation of energy rich and route  friendly Muslim nations .

The bellicose and zero-sum language Trump uses to discuss America’s role in the world undermines longstanding objectives of US foreign policy.

Trump has embraced a conventional and consistent foreign policy rooted in a clear understanding of American interests and a persistent but not overextended international presence. He also represents an opportunity to recover traditional American realism. Many analysts like to see Trump as a practitioner of classic realpolitik, argue that Trump has changed the tone, but not the substance, of American foreign policy.

The feature of continuity in American foreign policy may be especially comforting since research suggests inexperienced presidents like Trump are especially reliant on their professional subordinates making decisions.

Trump has also deviated from the past policies. Alongside his fiery rhetoric Trump abandoned the Trans-Pacific Partnership, pulled out of the Paris Climate Accords, withdrew from UNESCO, and undermined the Iranian nuclear deal. Collectively, these concrete actions portend a full-scale rejection of what little remains of the post-Cold War bipartisan policy consensus and diminish American leadership and credibility abroad.

President Trump hints that he is fundamentally changing American foreign policy through aspects of personnel management. This he has shown in his Asian tour.

A few analysts often observe that the USA under Trump continues to defend Europe with American troops wants them to pay for the security arrangement being provided by USA, has not substantially modified Obama’s Syria and Afghanistan policies, and is learning to accommodate a rising China for future reasons.

If adversaries are unsure of how the USA will respond in a crisis, they may refrain from rolling the iron dice. Likewise, if NATO allies perceive waning American commitment, they may take more responsibility for their own defense and thereby strengthen the alliance. Trump’s call for the USA to “be more unpredictable” could therefore be viewed as a boon rather than as a liability. Some analysts say that Trump’s cultivation of ambiguity in foreign affairs is held up by a minority of the commentariat as a source of opportunity.

The president’s ignorance about international politics and preference for “tactical transactionalism” render the administration devoid of any policy process yielding a coherent strategy. The central role of the White House in conducting US foreign policy, especially given the president’s distaste for State Department careerists, may bode poorly for developing holistic approaches to particular challenges.

Virtually everyone acknowledges that Trump’s inarticulate rhetoric diverges from that of previous presidents in both style and substance.  If talented and motivated personnel at all levels are essential to developing and implementing strategy, the Trump government is stuck in a self-inflicted foreign policy paralysis. Without personnel who understand the interagency, there is reason to question the effectiveness and responsiveness of US policymaking under Trump.

Trump’s China policy should be viewed from a broad spectrum.  Donald Trump, the 45th president of USA is making sweeping judgments about its strategic vices and virtues and is gradually changing America’s relationship with the world and what it means for international security. . Some analysts emphasize continuity of Trump polices, highlighting things like generally similar approaches global and regional issues like terrorism across the Trump and Obama regimes.

The withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership has dealt a blow to US economic and commercial influence in East Asia, at a time when China’s economic influence is expanding. The White House’s disdain for the international system and multilateral institutions has created dismay among Asian countries that count on them to provide barriers to Chinese bullying.

Trump’s “America First” rhetoric suits his latest China “visit plus”.  Obviously, he has to take counsel from the all important policy makers among Neocons on his new China policy. Or not?

The Trump government has concentrated on two issues in its relationship with China: North Korea and trade. While it has secured Chinese buy-in for a new diplomatic framework for dialogue, the administration does not appear to have settled on an overarching China strategy.  Beijing hesitates to commit to US initiatives because of uncertainty over the steadfastness and coherence of US policy.

Even while world looks at the US-China bilateral relationship for signs of stability or strain, we cannot forget that the relationship does not occur in a vacuum. The relationship should be embedded in a larger set of stable US political, security, and economic ties. That means more than the occasional bilateral visit or meeting, valuable as those may be. It will require a great commitment to the region, of strategic thinking, time, resources, and energy.

The US ability to leverage its greater national power in its relationship with China has for a long time been limited and it certainly has diminished now. Trump is playing cards with a weaker hand, some of it self-induced.

Indeed, the only multilateral economic games are now China-centered, namely the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership negotiations, and the “One Belt, One Road” initiative, and almost all Asian countries participate in each.

The attitude of “America First,” and the public debate in the United States over the North Korea nuclear problem that obsesses over the threat to the US mainland while ignoring the clear and present danger to allies on North Korea’s doorstep, has revived long-dormant debates in the region about US reliability in the face of China.

China continues the implementation of its parallel regional vision in the form of the “Belt and Road” initiative. Despite the warm personal relationship with Xi and a non-confrontational visit to Beijing, it is far from clear that US-China relations are headed for calm waters. While the US president may see Xi as a friend and role model of sorts, US interests remain constant and work continues at lower levels to reinvigorate US leadership in Asia.

Despite his initial hesitance on core Chinese interests like the US support for the “One-China policy on Taiwan,  Trump has come around to regarding Xi as a close friend (Xi, of course, has little reason to sincerely reciprocate and may find that keeping up appearances with Trump and playing along is more than sufficient to secure Chinese interest

On trade too, despite Trump’s eagerness to avoid blaming China, the hard work of eliciting results will continue to yield friction. Even the eye-popping $253 billion in poorly clarified, non-binding deals announced during Trump’s trip, while the source of impressive headlines, will prove disappointing in implementation.

Beijing successfully stage managed the visit, which was primarily designed to leave observers with the appearance that despite the broader challenges in the U.S.-China agenda, the personal rapport between Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping was exceptionally strong. In reality, a range of difficult issues continue to keep the United States and China and their professed strategic priorities in Asia and the world apart, along with a divergence in their visions for global order in the 21st century.

The regional powers including India are anxious about Chinese military expansion, have been shaken by US presidential remarks indicating a mercenary and transactional approach to defense obligations.

The Trump government is fixed on North Korea and trade deficits and has failed to demonstrate that the USA could walk-and-chew-gum in Asia, where various long-term and diffuse challenges persist.

For US-China ties, the Trump visit may just be the illusion of calm before the coming storm. Any change in US-China r or US-Russia relations would alter America’s relationship with the world, especially with its cold war allies.

One should see if Trump with his close links with Jews- his son in law is a Jew with deep connection with the Zionist government and Mossad secret origination, would reform US policy for Palestine and Arab world drastically. However, pervasive uncertainty surrounding the president’s intentions makes it more difficult for Trump teams and officials to successfully execute foreign policy. –

Trump might be trying out former Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara’s reflection on the Cuban Missile Crisis (1962) saying that “there is no longer any such thing as strategy, there is only crisis management.”

The president has actually espoused largely mainstream views, and any rhetoric striking out in new directions is often targeted at issues, like transatlantic burden sharing and Chinese mercantilism, where American foreign policy should change.

US government and the President are being controlled by Israel and the powerful and rich US Jewish leaders. Most official advisors have got Mossad links. The Zionist situation places intense pressure on decision-making at White House and force leaders to operate in extreme information vacuums, strain policy processes ending in wrong policies.

If USA leaves Israel to defend itself as the reigning super power of West Asia without having to misuse it veto  for  shielding  the Zionist crimes against humanity as the only US foreign policy, President Trump could  renegotiate  reemergence of US power on world stage with enormous prestige.  That would automatically help USA change its perception of Iran, Venezuela and North Korea, others As it is defending one rouge state Israel does not augur well for US fight for other “rogues”. Defending a disaster like Israel obviously forces USA lose opportunities for genuine global leadership.

US President signs documents that benefit those who financed heavily during his presidency poll. Because of the structure of the American government, emergencies normally amplify presidential authority, and as a result, the country’s foreign policy might prove especially malleable most of the time. Israel has been major beneficiary of such mismanagement of presidency.

That is fate of modern America!