America deterring or involved? The choice that will decide the future of the Middle East

Shmuel Rosner,the commentator on US affairs, was interviewed today (Tuesday) on the program of Arel Sgt on 103FM and commented on the tumultuous election campaign between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris.

At the beginning of his remarks he said: “Walter Russell divided the American doctrines into four options. He spoke of the tensions between the Jacksonians, those for whom the most important thing is aggressiveness, force, American militarism, that Trump belongs to this version, the Wilsons, the Hamiltonians – that the economic element is the important element Most from their point of view, and the Jeffersonians, those who relatively want an America distinct to itself.”

“In choosing between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, we have to choose a more intimidating America, which is Trump, and a more involved America, which is Harris,” he noted, “It is clear to us that we want the mix of both, which is both involved and intimidating. It is not certain that we can get this combination , and therefore we are in a dilemma that seems to me to be long-term versus short-term.”

Rosner elaborated: “In the short term, it is clear to us that we want Trump’s presence as a deterrent, and also someone who is troubled by the sentiments of humanitarian organizations. He is not the man who will fight for UNRWA. In the long term, it’s clear that if Trump, and Vanes more than him, pull the US into a separatist region along the lines of the 1920s, that’s not something we want.”

“It is completely clear that Trump’s claim regarding the need for the Europeans to increase their share of the pie is correct. On the other hand, it is clear that even if the Europeans show this willingness, it is not certain if this is what will convince Trump to strengthen the international alliances of the United States. We do not want a third world war , but what happens if the United States, in order to prevent a world war, sacrifices assets like Taiwan, like Ukraine or, for example, Israel? We want the Americans to have more impulses to defend countries that are defending themselves against the axis of evil,” Rosner added.

He also emphasized that “there were some polls that were more encouraging from Harris’ point of view, but we are in the noise stage. We have reached election day and the question of whether someone has increased or decreased by a percentage in a country is mostly noise. There are three models that are trying to predict the elections. What is the result of all three this morning?: The Economist : 50-50; 538 and Nate Silver say: 50-49 for Harris. In the end we have no way of knowing who will win. Our victory is to know who will win, but we hold elections for that.”

He later said: “It is true that today in the global world it is difficult to maintain separatism of the type that existed at the beginning of the 20th century, on the other hand the US can raise or lower its level of involvement in the world. To maintain economic interests, but to decide that it has no economic interest in Ukraine and has no interest in Israel and is reducing its involvement. With all the good will, we are not a powerhouse. We need the backing of a power. We are not that important financially. Can the U.S. disconnect from the world completely like in the days of Jefferson? No. Can it disconnect in a way that could threaten us as Israelis? The answer is yes. And this is something we should be afraid of, and prepare for.”

“We can all agree that Trump and Kamala Harris are not of the caliber of Jackson, Wilson, Hamilton and Jefferson. It’s a shame that the USA cannot produce leaders of their caliber today,” Rosner concluded.