Mexico and the non-tariffs - and the inevitable rush of hot takes

Mexico's president Manuel Lopez Obrador and its foreign minister Marcelo Ebrard held a rally in Tijuana to celebrate the outcome of negotiations over the twin issues of trade and stopping Central American would-be illegal aliens at the Mexico-Guatemala border.

Now, the question arises as to why they can take a celebratory stance, when a number of folks - pretty much all of whom, ahem, are, shall we say, rather enthusiastic about the current US president - portray a scenario in which Mexico buckled under the hard-nosed tactics of their US counterparts.

Now, it comes to light, via a New York Times article, that Mexico had agreed to take border action months ago.  It's kind of interesting to see the way Michael Shear and Maggie Haberman, the article's authors, frame the matter. They basically say that it was the Very Stable Genius whose knees started quivering because a critical mass of post-Americans understood what a bad idea the tariffs would be:

It was unclear whether Mr. Trump believed that the agreement truly represented new and broader concessions, or whether the president understood the limits of the deal but accepted it as a face-saving way to escape from the political and economic consequences of imposing tariffs on Mexico, which he began threatening less than two weeks ago.

Having threatened Mexico with an escalating series of tariffs — starting at 5 percent and growing to 25 percent — the president faced enormous criticism from global leaders, business executives, Republican and Democratic lawmakers, and members of his own staff that he risked disrupting a critical marketplace.

After nine days of uncertainty, Mr. Trump backed down and accepted Mexico’s promises. 

Well, the VSG wasn't going to stand for that, of course. So he went on a Twitter rant. I found this particular exhibition of his thin skin noteworthy:

If President Obama made the deals that I have made, both at the Border and for the Economy, the Corrupt Media would be hailing them as Incredible, & a National Holiday would be immediately declared. With me, despite our record setting Economy and all that I have done, no credit!

And you know that one has the throne-sniffers fist-pumping across the land.

As with anything in post-America, there is no time for a world-stage or national-stage development to marinate for even a microsecond. An assessment of whether it was a win or loss for one's own tribe must be issued immediately.

Is it possible that this turn of events was a little of this, a little of that, and that Mexico had little or no interest in letting yet another caravan traipse across its territory?

Some further investigative journalism and the hindsight of history after some months or years have passed will give us a better view. But few post-Americans have that kind of patience. There's a cadre of bad guys to own!

Monday roundup

Jared Kushner's image as the boy wonder of Middle East peace negotiations is taking a hit. Palestinians in general don't like what he's coming up with; the stuff they've been insisting on all along -   statehood, Jerusalem as capital, and a right of return for refugees (71 years later, how many of those are there?) - isn't part of the plan. Each of the main Palestinian organizations has its specific reasons for giving it a big thumbs down:

The deal as outlined so far has been dismissed by President Mahmoud Abbas' western-backed Palestinian Authority in the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

Abbas has boycotted political dealings with the Trump administration for 18 months. This followed Trump's decisions in 2017 to recognise Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv.

Since then, the Trump administration has curtailed aid to the Palestinian Authority, shuttered the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) delegation in Washington and cut off finance to UNRWA, the U.N. agency supporting Palestinian refugees. Washington meanwhile endorsed Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.

"In practice they have already started implementing 'the deal of the century'," the senior Palestinian leader said, "on the ground, step by step". "Today, the two-state solution has been scuttled".

Abbas is not alone in his view of the U.S. deal.

It was rejected by the Islamist Hamas movement, which does not recognise Israel's right to exist and has only given conditional consent to a state in the occupied Palestinian territories.

The PLO has dismissed the Kushner effort as an attempt to bribe Palestinians into accepting Israeli occupation of the West Bank, a prelude to Israel annexing about half their territory and leaving them with scattered cantons.

Hanan Ashrawi, a moderate Palestinian leader, tweeted that the Kushner plan and the Bahrain conference were just "a handout to make our captivity palatable".

And while it's been interesting to observe the closer ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia due to their common alarm about Iran, King Salman won't endorse a deal that doesn't meet the Palis' conditions.

Sandy From Westchester has, in the space of five months, established herself as a kingmaker in the Freedom-Hater party.  Former Maryland congressman John Delaney wasn't exactly tearing up the polls anyway, but he came in for boos and derisive laughter at the California Democratic Convention for telling those assembled that Medicare for all is a bad and unworkable idea and that 150 million post-Americans who are at least somewhat presently satisfied with their health insurance don't want it yanked away. In a tweet, Sandy said his assertion was "untrue" and that he needed to "just sashay away."

Derek Scissors of the American Enterprise Institute has a great piece today entitled "China and Mexico: One Two Many Trips to the Tariff Well." Why is it so that there is one too many?

Placing high tariffs on one of them would mean we’d buy a lot more from the other; now we might not be able to. Canada, our third-largest source of imports, doesn’t send us the same products China and Mexico do. Neither does our fourth (Japan), fifth (Germany), and sixth (Britain), all much richer than China and Mexico and competitive in different sectors.

We have smaller trade partners, such as India, who do compete with China and Mexico but they can’t substitute for Chinese and Mexican goods on anything like the scale necessary. Imports from India last year were less than $90 billion.

Nor can we shift much production at all to the US in just the few months of time left according to the administration’s threats. If we apply 25% tariffs on China and Mexico simultaneously on October 1, the only thing we’re going to get is far more expensive products from China and Mexico.

One response from the administration might be to look to the longer term. In the long term, production would rise somewhat in the US and other countries would be able to replace Chinese and Mexican supply. That process, however, will take far longer if the main substitute for China (Mexico) and the main substitute for Mexico (China) are taken out of the picture.

As a China hawk, I have further concerns. The president’s confrontation of the PRC has caused companies to consider moving production. That process will slow if firms fear heavy new tariffs, for widely varying reasons, may be introduced on other countries. Further, in a battle for share of the US market after 25% tariffs, China would easily out-subsidize Mexico, and huge amounts of dollars would continue to flow to the Communist Party.

None of this means it is acceptable for Mexico to allow tens of thousands of migrants from other countries to pass through to the American border. Nor is it acceptable for China to continue to steal American technology important for national security and the health of our economy. But it is certainly possible to argue that tariffs are not a good response in either case. For example, the US has plenty of other tools to deal with China, such as targeting Chinese state-owned enterprises with sanctions.

If President Trump still insists on broad tariffs, there is no escaping that these two sets of tariffs undermine each other. The administration should bite the bullet and set a priority. And only one of these countries is a globally dangerous dictatorship.

Michael Brown is one of those Christian conservatives whose fealty to sound doctrine is refreshing, but whose enthusiasm for the Very Stable Genius leads him to make some very lame excuses for the guy. Such is the case with his latest Townhall column in which he claims to see 5-D chess in the VSG's balancing of his recognize-the-great-contributions-of-our-LGBT-citizens pandering with his reinstatement of the ban on transgenders in the military. Weak tea, Michael. The VSG is nowhere near that deft. He does what he thinks is going to make him look like a winner at any given moment even if it contradicts - because he has the memory capacity of my cats - what he did to look like a winner yesterday.

I mean, check this out:

As an evangelical supporter of Trump, I would much rather that he did not muddy the waters with what appears to be a mixed message. But it’s who he has been since he announced his run for president. And overall, when the dust settles, he has done far more to oppose LGBT activism than to support it, as Signorile and his colleagues know all too well.

Play-like energy forms are hitting users of normal-people energy forms in the pocketbook:

Solar panels and wind turbines are making electricity significantly more expensive, a major new study by a team of economists from the University of Chicago finds.

Renewable Portfolio Standards (RPS) "significantly increase average retail electricity prices, with prices increasing by 11% (1.3 cents per kWh) seven years after the policy’s passage into law and 17% (2 cents per kWh) twelve years afterward," the economists write.

The study, which has yet to go through peer-review, was done by Michael Greenstone, Richard McDowell, and Ishan Nath. It compared states with and without an RPS. It did so using what the economists say is "the most comprehensive state-level dataset ever compiled" which covered 1990 to 2015.

The cost to consumers has been staggeringly high: "All in all, seven years after passage, consumers in the 29 states had paid $125.2 billion more for electricity than they would have in the absence of the policy," they write.

Freddy Gray at Spectator USA is exactly right that the VSG needs to cut it out re: the schoolboy name-calling exchange he has going with London mayor Sadiq Khan:

Trump being Trump, he can’t resist counter-punching Khan. Twitter spats are his modus operandi. But it is a shame that he has insisted on reigniting his feud with Khan, since there are far more interesting things to talk about at this important moment in the relations between America and Brexit Britain. Trump vs Khan is a silly distraction, a bit like that ridiculous (and oddly small) Trump baby protest blimp that commands so much media attention.

Glenn Reynolds' dim view of what social media is doing to us ought to give us pause:

In the days of the old blogosphere, when people expressed views on their own personal blogs, scattered across many different servers and platforms, other blogs might pick them up.
But each time that happened, it took a conscious decision, and at least some degree of thought, to compose and publish a blog post, and bloggers who published links to stories or posts found elsewhere often encouraged readers to “read the whole thing.”
On social media, a “share” or “retweet” takes but a second, and research indicates that most people never read anything but the headline before sharing. This facilitates the rapid spread of outrage mobs, conspiracy theories and hysteria.

Things are made worse by the fact that social media sites operate under algorithms that promote “engagement,” which generally means emotion. And because, as tech visionary Jaron Lanier has written, the easiest emotions to engage are the negative emotions, the effect of social media platforms’ algorithms is to amplify negative feelings.

The more you use them, the angrier and sadder you’re likely to become. (And they’re quite consciously designed to be addictive.) 

Jim Geraghty at National Review is pretty worked up - and rightly so - about PACs from the yee-haw stratum of the Right scamming people who think their donations are going to rescue Western civilization: He gives the figures for amounts donated in a particular time frame vs. how much actually went to particular political candidates or causes of a slew of organizations: Put Vets First, Conservative Strike Force, Tea Party Majority Fund, a bogus Sheriff David Clarke-for-Senate campaign fund, and the Committee To Restore America's Greatness, just to name a few.

Don't hold back, Jim. Tell us how you really see it:

And some folks want us to believe that the problem with the conservative movement is David French?

Why is the conservative movement not as effective as its supporters want it to be? Because day after day, year after year, little old ladies get called on the phone or emailed or receive letters in the mail telling them that the future of the country is at stake and that if they don’t make a donation to groups that might as well be named Make Telemarketers Wealthy Again right now, the country will go to hell in a handbasket. Those little old ladies get out their checkbooks and give what they can spare, convinced that they’re making a difference and helping make the world a better place. What they’re doing is ensuring that the guys running these PACs can enjoy a more luxurious lifestyle. Meanwhile, conservative candidates lose, kicking the dirt after primary day or the general election, convinced that if they had just had another $100,000 for get-out-the-vote operations, they might have come out on top.

Mayor Lightfoot, call your office: 50 shot, 10 dead in Chicago over the weekend.

 

 

The Very Stable Genius jeopardizes his own North American trade deal

Spin this, shills:

In a surprise announcement that could derail a major trade deal, President Donald Trump announced Thursday that he is slapping a 5% tariff on all Mexican imports, effective June 10, to pressure the country to do more to crack down on the surge of Central American migrants trying to cross the U.S. border.

He said the percentage will gradually increase — up to 25% — “until the Illegal Immigration problem is remedied.”

The decision showed the administration going to new lengths, and looking for new levers, to pressure Mexico to take action — even if those risk upending other policy priorities, like the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a trade deal that is the cornerstone of Trump’s legislative agenda and seen as beneficial to his reelection effort. It also risks further damaging the already strained relationship between the U.S. and Mexico, two countries whose economics are deeply intertwined.

The VSG takes the notion of winging it to new levels. It's as if he can't remember having had his team carefully craft the deal. That was so yesterday:

. . . the sudden tariff threat comes at a peculiar time, given how hard the administration has been pushing for passage of the USMCA, which would update the North American Free Trade Agreement. It comes less than two weeks after Trump lifted import taxes on Mexican and Canadian steel and aluminum, a move that seemed to clear an obstacle to its passage, and the same day that both Trump and López Obrador began the process of seeking ratification. The deal needs approval from lawmakers in all three countries before it takes effect.

“The tariffs certainly put the USMCA on ice,” said Gary Hufbauer, an expert in trade law at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, who panned the move but said Trump does have the legal authority to impose the tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act by citing a national emergency.

“The drama is legal, but it’s preposterous,” he said. 

Unless one is an ate-up member of his cult, he makes it awfully hard to consider voting for him.

Sunday roundup

Mexico's new president hits the ground running as the firebrand leftist he's shown himself to be throughout his career.

The Paris riots have metastasized beyond disgruntlement about fuel tax hikes. This is a wakeup call for the French people that they have something very fundamental about the present state of their nation's character that they need to squarely look at.

Jonah Goldberg's G-File for this week is a must-read. The whole thing is worth your while, both for the contour of the argument he builds, as well as the fact that it's one of the best examples of the particular style with which he composes these G-Files that he's offered in some time. I'l just tease with a couple of examples:

I’m on nobody’s side [regarding the Mueller investigation]. I don’t have a dog in this fight. To mix metaphors like a special blender for metaphors, I’m going to play the ball, not the man — or men. What I mean by that is that if the truth or facts or evidence is on Trump’s side, I’ll defend that. If it’s not on his side, I won’t be either.

That’s not going to be true for a lot of people who, for one reason or another, have invested way too much in Donald Trump and in the idea that he deserves their loyalty. That ain’t me.

I’ve spent the last couple years perhaps a bit too vexed by some of those people. I’ve finally figured out a way to make peace, in my own mind, with at least some of their behavior.

In print and in podcast, I’ve been talking a lot about how the two parties are shells of what they once were and how outside groups and institutions have filled the voids left behind by their shrinkage. The parties used to choose candidates and issues. Parties educated voters. Over the last 50 years, that function has essentially been outsourced to interest groups, media outlets, think tanks, etc. As a result, the dividers between different lanes shrunk or vanished. Writers and intellectuals on the left and the right became de facto political consultants and party activists. Many political consultants acted like public intellectuals or pundits. Intellectuals became entertainers and entertainers pretended to be intellectuals. Politicians quit their jobs to be TV talking heads, and TV talking heads run for office.

And

 There’s a reason why the Kavanaugh spectacle was the only time the broader American Right has unified during Trump’s presidency; it was because Donald Trump wasn’t the issue, even if he at times tried to make it about him. It was the one-time moment when all of the hats could converge or overlap each other.

There are those on the right who very much want the coming donnybrook to be like that again. It’s possible it will. It’s possible the Democrats will overreach or that Mueller will live down to the slanders grifters on the right have concocted about him. But I doubt it will happen. This will be about Trump. And while impeachment may not be warranted, he will not look good in this fight, because his true nature — and the nature of the creatures he surrounds himself with — will once again be exposed.

I’m not going to the mattresses in any of this, because I see no reason to give the president — or many of his most rabid opponents — the benefit of the doubt, never mind loyalty. The only major player here who deserves the benefit of the doubt right now is Robert Mueller. Because while we may learn that he made mistakes or overstepped, as of now, the one thing I know he cares about is the facts. About his slander-spewing right-wing critics — and to some extent his left-wing sanctifiers — I know no such thing.

Carl Cannon's Real Clear Politics piece entitled "Intersectionality and Today's Twitter Trotskyites" is likewise best read in its entirety, but this is a representative of its essence:

Unfamiliar with the terms “misgendering” or “deadnaming”? Don’t feel bad; they’re of recent vintage. Misgendering means referring to a man who’s transitioning (or who has transitioned) to a woman as a male – and vice versa. Deadnaming is even more Orwellian. It means you can’t refer to a famous U.S. Army traitor by the name under which he was court-martialed. Or mention the full name of the television star who captured Americans’ hearts by winning a 1976 Olympic gold medal in the decathlon.

Yes, the logic of intersectionality is a mystery. A Jewish woman is banned from Twitter for saying that gays have little freedom under Sharia law. But a notorious Jew-baiting black nationalist gets a pass for a “joke” comparing Jews to termites.

Looks like biofuel mandates live to see another day, thanks to a Republican Congress afraid to say no to King Corn and an economically illiterate president.

International-incident roundup

Ukraine's president is demanding the return of sailors and ships that Russia seized in a standoff near Crimea.


The EU likes the terms of Theresa May's Brexit-deal offer, but will the UK Parliament? 

Good on ya, Mexico:

Mexico’s interior ministry says the government will deport nearly 500 members of the Central America migrant caravan who tried to storm the U.S. border Sunday.

In a statement, the ministry said the mob was detained after attempting to cross the border “illegally” and “violently.”

But how will the incoming Lopez Obrador administration deal with it? 

If - we're probably talking about when - Lopez Obrador wins, it's going to be pass-the-popcorn time

The most leftist presidential candidate in decades is likely to get elected in Mexico on July 1. Former Mexico City mayor Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has made it pretty clear he's none too fond of the free market.

But on the personality level, he bears more than a passing resemblance to the Very Stable Genius. He love big rallies in big stadiums. As the linked Reuters story says, he has a strong will and a sharp tongue. Observers and particularly apologists seek to reassure the Mexican public that he has "matured" and isn't going to make rash moves.

And consider the timing. We're in a period of peak controversy about illegal immigration. Lopez Obrador calls it a human right:

“And soon, very soon — after the victory of our movement — we will defend all the migrants in the American continent and all the migrants in the world,” Obrador said, adding that immigrants “must leave their towns and find a life in the United States.”

He then declared migration “a human right we will defend,” eluniversal.com reports.

 If even right-leaning Mexican presidents find Trump antagonizing, what will the coming Clash of the Monumental Egos look like?

Especially since there's no telling how Trump regards any leader of any nation-state on any given day.

UPDATE: John Daniel Davidson at The Federalist writes about the recent spike in cartel-driven violence in Mexico and its role in the current spike in illegal immigration to the US. In the coverage I've seen about Lopez Obrador, I haven't seen anything about a solid and comprehensive plan for dealing with this head-on.

The Very Stable Genius has no consistent set of economic principles - today's edition

  . . . which means his successes, such as the great jobs report released this morning (unemployment at an 18-year low) are of a hit-and-miss nature rather than being the result of a coherent vision.

Lowering taxes, of course, is always good, and the current employment picture is a direct result of the fundamental principle that people and organizations ought to be able to keep all their money save what government can convincingly justify taking from them. When they keep their own money, they tend to put it to productive use.

But these tariffs slapped on European, Canadian and Mexican goods are about as boneheaded a move as could be asked for.  It is already catalyzing what looks for all the world like a trade war.

The EU responded by saying it will impose retaliatory tariffs on US goods and take the US to the World Trade Organisation’s “trade court” to get Mr Trump’s policy declared illegal.

Britain branded the move as "absurd" with Liam Fox, the international trade secretary, signalling the UK could take retaliatory measures.

The announcement from the US commerce secretary, Wilbur Ross, comes as Mr Fox's department seeks to lay the groundwork for a post-Brexit trade deal with Washington.

Steel imports will now be hit with a 25 per cent US levy. Aluminium exporters will face an additional 10 per cent charge. The Trump administration claims these are justified on US “national security” grounds.

The EU has previously threatened retaliatory duties on US whiskey, jeans, orange juice, peanut butter and other products if the US followed through on its metal tariff plans. 

The chorus of sane voices strongly objecting is loud and forthright:

"This is dumb," Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse said. "Europe, Canada, and Mexico are not China, and you don't treat allies the same way you treat opponents. We've been down this road before— — blanket protectionism is a big part of why America had a Great Depression. 'Make America Great Again' shouldn't mean 'Make America 1929 Again.'" 

House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady said the tariffs "are hitting the wrong target" that "puts American workers and families at risk, whose jobs depend on fairly traded products from these important trading partners. And it hurts our efforts to create good-paying U.S. jobs by selling more 'Made in America' products to customers in these countries." 

Sen. Orrin Hatch, a reliable ally for Trump, said the tariffs amounted to "a tax hike on Americans and will have damaging consequences for consumers, manufacturers and workers." 

"We should build on our success in overhauling the nation's tax code with complementary trade policies that, rather than favoring one narrow industry, make all sectors of the US economy more competitive," Hatch added.
Even House Speaker Paul Ryan dismissed the decision as counterproductive. 

"I disagree with this decision. Instead of addressing the real problems in the international trade of these products, today's action targets America's allies when we should be working with them to address the unfair trading practices of countries like China," Ryan said in a statement. "There are better ways to help American workers and consumers. I intend to keep working with the president on those better options." 

Heritage Foundation economist Tori Whiting told Business Insider that the move by the Trump administration represented a "tremendous misstep" that would harm American companies. 

"Sixteen percent of our steel imports come from Canada, our closest neighbor. Roughly 60% of our aluminum imports come from Canada, our closest neighbor," Whiting said. "And that's not only going to reduce supply of those products for manufacturers here in America that use them in their production, but it's also going to result in the prices for those products increasing even more domestically — not just for those companies that buy imports but also for companies that buy domestically." 

"I think that anytime you are imposing tariffs on your friends, it's a poor move, especially when we want these other countries to help us with China," Whiting added. "And dealing with trade complications between the US and China, we want the EU and Canada and Mexico to help us with that. So I wouldn't necessarily say that this is the beginning of a trade war. ... But I would say it's not conducive to maintaining a long-term relationship with those countries and having them help us in other areas of trade." 

Other tariffs, like one Trump is considering on foreign cars, caused similar levels of concern in Washington. 

"The announcement that foreign automobiles might be subjected to similar tariffs does not bode well for the economy or for the Trump economic record," wrote American Enterprise Institute Resident Scholar Benjamin Zycher in a Wednesday op-ed for National Review. "Because there is no obvious limit on the national-security rationale for protectionism, this policy will engender substantial uncertainty in the economy." 

But rather than these voices, it seems it's the rank protectionist Peter Navarro who has the VSG's ear:

“This particular action on steel and aluminum is not about unfair trade practices. It's about national security… without an aluminum steel industry, we don't have a country,” Navarro said during a FOX Business interview on the “After the Bell” program on Thursday.

Navarro added that imposing tariffs on the nation's closest allies is an opportunity to create jobs.

“All we are trying to do here with the 232 tariffs is to provide our domestic industries an opportunity to earn a decent rate of return and invest in this country,” he said.

Peter, the number of jobs created for steel and aluminum workers is dwarfed by the number lost in industries downstream in the supply chain.

The VSG is winging it, which seems to be working out okay for the moment, but what happens right around the bend in this nationalist-populist era is anybody's guess.

 

The new administration's foreign policy so far: a mixed bag reflective of DJT's basic approach to everything

Are contours of an overall DJT administration becoming discernible?

That's a million-dollar question, and the reason goes right back to what everyone - his water-carriers, his opponents on the right, and those on the left who absolutely hate him - has acknowledged from the outset: Squirrel-Hair is not driven by a core ideological consistency.

So even when you get encouraging moves such as National Security Advisor Michael Flynn speaking plainly about Iran, particularly its latest missile test, and mentioning that the previous US administration, along with the UN, had dealt weakly with Iran, there is a problematic element:

The problem is with his performance: By issuing a warning so imprecise — in such a dramatic, public fashion — he has set himself and the United States up for either an embarrassing retreat or a risky confrontation.

Nikki Haley is off to a good start at the UN, speaking of plain speaking:

The new US ambassador to the United Nations used her inaugural statement to the international body to condemn Russian aggression in Ukraine.

“I consider it unfortunate that the occasion of my first appearance is one in which I must condemn the aggressive actions of Russia,” Haley said.

“It is unfortunate because it is a replay of too many instances over many years in which United States representatives have had to do that.”

She singled out Russia’s aggression in Ukraine.

The remarks may help silence critics of President Trump who have feared he’s too in sync with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“This escalation of violence must stop,” Haley warned.

But then there is the bone-headedness that presents itself when S-H himself gets into the act. The calls to Mexican president Enrique Pena Nieto and Australian Prime Minister Turnbull went badly. In particular, the conversation with Turnbull was supposed to last an hour, but was concluded in 25 minutes. He told Turnbull directly that, of all his talks with heads of state that day, that one was the worst. Also spent part of the time bragging about the magnitude of his election victory. Then tweeted afterward about how the arrangement reached with the prior administration about those refugees on the islands was "a dumb deal" - which it was, but it was a glaring case of misapplied bluntness.

Theresa May seems confident that she has convinced S-H of NATO's crucial role. We shall see. I'm not full-on skeptical, because PM May doesn't strike me as one easily given to illusory conclusions.

And this business about the White House warning Israel to stop announcing new settlements seems inconsistent with prior assurances that the Us-Israel alliance was of a special nature. Then again, the statement just said that Israel should stop announcing them.


There may not be a consistent core driving force at least yet - anything we could call a Trump Doctrine (and that may be too much to ask) - but a tone may be detectable: brash and blunt.  It's just a style that every other player on the world stage is going to have to decide how to react to.

The unsettling thing about it is that it makes predicting any dynamics among all the players vis-a-vis the Unites States rather dicey.