US President Joe Biden has come to power with a promise to reverse the policies of former US President Donald Trump, and in recent days has signed several executive orders to repeal Trump’s policies.
From the first days of his election victory, the 46th President of the United States has repeatedly acknowledged that the United States’ image in the world has been tarnished and intends to restore America’s lost credibility by repealing Trump’s law-breaking policies.
The ideological connection of Trump’s actions with the United States
Biden has already signed more than 40 executive orders, some aimed at repealing Donald Trump-era policies, both internationally and domestically.
Although Biden’s decisions are expected to change the course of US domestic politics at the international level, the actions that Trump has taken during his four years in power are so closely linked to the values and ideologies that govern America that they can be overcome by The circular does not seem to be anything more than verbal displays and advertising exploits.
This value-ideological connection can be deduced and observed especially from the examination of the type of criticism of his opponents (who are mainly members of the Democratic Party) for his decisions in these areas. Such an examination would reveal that the tip of the iceberg of Trump’s criticism is more the “form” of Trump’s international decisions or how they are presented in international forums than their “content.”
As far as the Biden administration is concerned, both the Democratic politician’s background and his criticisms of Trump make it clear that he did not seek to change the content of the law-breaking policies of the past four years (and the question is whether He could actually seek such a change (thinking of putting a mask on the face of the United States that Trump had thrown away).
Terrorism in the Scale of profits
For example, just a few days ago, Anthony Blinken revealed in a Senate credentialing session that the plot to assassinate Sardar Qassem Soleimani, the martyred commander of the IRGC’s Quds Force in the Barack Obama and George administrations. “Bush” was also raised and feared the possible consequences of such an action that discouraged those governments from implementing the plan. He noted that he did not “shed tears” for the removal of Sardar Soleimani, but criticized the Trump administration for not weighing the consequences of the decision. The issue here is that of Blinken, Biden, Barack Obama, and Democrats in general, not rejecting terrorism, but placing terrorism on a cost-benefit scale and using it in a way that guarantees maximum profit.
Trump’s decision to move the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem in violation of international law, which was met with international condemnation and marked an unprecedented display of US isolation on the international stage, is another example of this principle.
Recalling that the relocation of the US embassy to occupied Jerusalem was not the result of Trump’s spontaneous decision and merely the implementation of a suspended congressional law in 1995 speaks volumes. Section 7 of the law states that if the president deems that the suspension of the transfer of the embassy is in the interest of the United States, he can delay it for 6 months; And presidents before Trump have delayed the relocation of the embassy to occupied Jerusalem once every six months because they believe it is not in America’s best interest at the moment : adherence to international law here, too, has no place for Arabs and the law can be closed. He slaughtered whatever the benefit was.
Trump’s executive order to prevent nationals of predominantly Muslim countries from entering the United States is another matter. On his first day in the White House, Joe Biden signed an executive order claiming that Trump’s policy had been overturned, and the American media maneuvered to revoke Trump’s order against Muslim nationals, but the interesting thing is that Trump’s Islamophobic policy Ironically, it was a continuation of a law that Barack Obama drafted in consultation with lawmakers in Congress and signed into law.
After signing its first executive order banning the entry of citizens of several Muslim countries into the United States, the Donald Trump administration, in response to the question on what basis these countries were elected, correctly explained that these countries are the same countries mentioned in the law called “Prevention”. “Terrorist acts” that became law in December 2015 with Obama’s signature. Joe Biden was Obama’s deputy at the time, and the law Obama signed is still in place and has not been repealed.
Thus, the propaganda hype these days about Biden revoking Trump’s order to build trust with the Muslim world can not be considered a serious event that is supposed to bring about operational change, as the US-imposed crises on the Islamic world are the product of anti-Islamic ties with the delegation. The United States is the ruler, and so these crises did not come with Trump to go with Biden, and they were not directives that could be passed by signing another directive.
When it is the “principle of profit” that takes precedence over abstract values such as adherence to commitments, international law and the protection of human rights, it is predictable that in other areas, such as the US turning its back on NATO during Trump’s presidency, Biden – albeit with a smile. More and more friendly tone – will be the executor of the same policies of “America First” (or more logically “America Only”).
This point was made by a Western diplomat before Biden’s election victory in an interview with the Financial Times. “Europeans need a strong America, but the idea of getting everything back to normal before Trump was elected seems naive,” he said. “The only thing that will make a difference in Biden’s time will be a friendlier tone, more smiles, more photos and more travel.”
Similarly, the US government’s response to the Borjam nuclear deal is predictable. The Trump administration has blatantly violated US commitments under a UN Security Council agreement, but the debate in the United States today is that Biden should not overlook the benefits of Trump’s illegal actions. Here, too, the fulfillment of US commitments and the restoration of credibility are of secondary importance to maximizing profits from maximum pressure.
So when it comes to Biden’s retreat from Trump’s policies, what makes the difference is not the signing of a few executive orders, not more smiles, and the use of nicer words; Rather, it remains to be seen what changes in practical policies can be expected. The change in practical policies also depends more than anything on the answer to the question of whether the United States is willing to allow the originality of values to be the beacon of its policies, not the originality of profit.
