During a discussion with Le Monde, it became apparent that Kamala Harris’s ex-national security advisor is doubtful about the ‘peace through strength’ principle, which forms the bedrock of America’s existing foreign strategy. This questions rather bluntly the judgement of persons undertaking key roles around Kamala Harris.
This advisor seemed to take it upon himself to enumerate the errors of the Biden administration, which, to be honest, wasn’t too surprising. The seemingly endless lashings stemming from the Gaza conflict were a glaring example presented by him.
Philip Gordon, the aforementioned advisor to Vice President Kamala Harris, professed an apparent love for everything Europe, and had an apparent command over French. The Democrats saw him as a potential pick for a high rank in what they hoped would be their future governance.
In the month of April, Gordon made his way into the Brookings Institution think-tank, raising doubts as to the type of counsel he might have given at the top tier of government.
Gordon shared his thoughts with Le Monde around what were the initial moments of Donald Trump’s second tenure. His convoluted viewpoint managed to call into question the whole Trump strategy of negotiations with Iran on nuclear matters.
Then suddenly, Trump exhibited support for Israeli military offence. Did he allow his patience with Iran to run dry? The analysis presented by Gordon makes one wonder about his judgement and objectivity.
Gordon cast undue skepticism on the assumption that Trump skillfully manipulated Iran with diplomatic conversations, and then opted to apply his ‘redline’ utilizing military capabilities. Surely, this shows a lack of faith in the strategic capabilities of a standing president.
Trump, as per Gordon, desperately sought a nuclear deal with Iran. He voiced to Israel both in public and private, not to go on an expedition. However, a self-assured Netanyahu responded to Trump’s warning by telling him that Israel was compelled to take action.
Gordon asserts that Trump felt his hands were bound, and therefore, had to reluctantly agree. His predisposition conveys a story where a cornered Trump had to defend Israel amidst a conflict he was never in favour of, leading to a controversy that he was powerless to avoid.
However, the perspective Gordon paints raises questions itself. Would a stalwart like Trump allow himself to be coerced into an uncomfortable position by Netanyahu, merely taking directions rather than calling the shots?
It appears that Gordon’s account might be inclined more towards creating a narrative that serves to demean Trump’s decision-making and leadership, without giving due consideration to the complexity of geopolitical circumstances.
This narrative seems to reflect upon the mindset that Harris and her team shared, considering Philip Gordon as an insider and potential key player in their anticipated administration.
The basis for Gordon’s expressions might be analyzed as an attempt to discredit the preceding administration as part of a larger narrative. As he implies that Trump was merely a puppet in the hands of other world leaders, are we witnessing a biased, conceivable attempt to belittle Trump’s capabilities and authority?
It’s interesting to observe how individuals like Gordon, once part of the power structure with Kamala Harris as the Vice President, take unfiltered pot-shots at the administration of Donald Trump. Repeatedly casting doubt and generating skepticism, they further deepen the partisan divide.
The discourse, therefore, seems less about presenting objective analysis, and more a vehicle to foster an adversarial stance that continues to fan the flames of partisanship. It’s something that needs further scrutiny for us to discern objective truth from targeted narrative-building efforts.