Trump’s foreign policy team means business

Despite losing his national security adviser, the president has to clarify where he stands with Russia

It is still less than a month since Donald Trump was sworn in as America’s 45th president, but already he has made it abundantly clear that, when it comes to dealing with the outside world, this presidency will be like no other.

Within hours of entering the Oval Office, Mr Trump was involved in unseemly diplomatic spats with world leaders. A phone conversation with Australian prime minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is said to have ended abruptly when Mr Trump hung up.

Then there is the unpredictable nature of the president’s approach to difficult foreign policy issues such as China. One minute he is giving his support to Taiwan, and the next he is backing Beijing’s One China policy.

Now Mr Trump’s opponents, both at home and abroad, will seize on the resignation of National Security Adviser General Michael Flynn as further proof that the administration is all at sea on foreign policy.

Gen Flynn’s departure certainly adds to the perception that all is not well in the Trump White House, as the outgoing security chief is regarded as one of the best intelligence operatives of the modern era. But his reputation as a rebel, an officer who did not always conform to the normal rules of military conduct, meant that he often found himself in hot water.

And Gen Flynn’s disregard for conventional norms no doubt explains his decision to make overtures to Russia’s ambassador to Washington prior to Mr Trump’s inauguration, during which he is said to have discussed lifting US sanctions against Russia.

Irrespective of what actually took place during those conversations, the accusation is that Gen Flynn misled Vice President Mike Pence about his dealings with the Russian diplomat, with the result that he has now lost his job.

This is a significant setback for Mr Trump, particularly as Gen Flynn’s resignation comes at a time when the White House already stands accused of having no clear idea about how to handle the outside world.

It is vital, therefore, that Mr Trump appoints a high-quality replacement – former CIA director General David Petraeus, with his distinguished military and intelligence background, is one obvious contender – to counter the perception that his administration is adrift.

For while Mr Trump’s approach is very different to Barack Obama’s laid-back style, the concern remains that the controversy generated by the president’s more outlandish utterances will overshadow the very serious work that is being undertaken by the seasoned professionals he has gathered around him.

The likes of Jim Mattis, the Defence Secretary, and CIA director Mike Pompeo are people who know their way around the world and, more to the point, have a pretty clear idea of what they want to achieve in foreign policy.

Already they have identified Iran and China as Washington’s two most important security challenges: Iran because of its blatant attempts to undermine America’s allies in the Middle East, China because of its increasingly assertive posture in the South China Sea.

These are both issues that could easily escalate into open conflict without proper focus from the White House, and the recent visit Mr Mattis made to Japan was designed to reassure a key American ally while sending a message to Beijing to tone down its tactics.

Mr Pompeo, meanwhile, has concentrated on rebuilding relations with Arab leaders who feel they were neglected by Mr Obama. Visiting Bahrain this week, he attended a summit of Arab intelligence chiefs, where they agreed to enact a series of measures aimed at countering Iranian-sponsored terror groups throughout the region.

The support of moderate, prowestern Arab states could also prove helpful to Mr Trump’s declared goal of destroying Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (Isil).

The US-led coalition has recently made great strides in its attempts to dislodge Isil militants from Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, and enlisting the support of moderate Arab regimes could help the campaign to generate even greater momentum.

The big question, though, concerning the campaign to destroy Isil, as well as the rest of the Trump administration’s foreign policy agenda, is just how closely the new president intends to work with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Mr Trump has suggested he is a huge admirer of the Russian leader, and might be prepared to cooperate with him on issues of mutual interest, such as tackling Isil.

But as Gen Flynn has found to his cost, institutional Russophobia runs deep in Washington security circles, and Cold War veterans like Mr Mattis and Mr Pompeo are likely to be far more sceptical about Moscow’s intentions.

In the interests of clarity, therefore, Mr Trump needs to make clear what sort of a relationship he seeks with Mr Putin. This is the one area of national security policy where he simply cannot allow more confusion to reign.