Connect with us



Staff Picks

Here’s what Donald Trump said in his foreign policy speech

A speech heavy on emphasis on fighting Islamist terrorism and cooperation with Russia shows genuine realism insight but still suffers from some outdated ideas and policies which have not been thought through.




Yesterday, Donald Trump delivered a lengthy speech on his foreign policy plans. The speech was in many ways a mixed bag, combining some sentient and clear points with a few misunderstandings as well as some curious omissions. Here are the key points ranked on Trump’s preferred scale of 1 out of 10.

Russia: Unlike Hillary Clinton who blames all of her personal woes as well as most global crises on Russia, Trump did not mention let alone criticise Russia’s internal nor foreign policies. He instead reiterated one of his long standing points that cooperation with Russia on ISIS can only be a good thing and that seeing Russia as a partner rather than adversary is advisable. 10/10

Iran: Trump’s views on Iran are hopelessly out of date. He referred to Iran as the world’s biggest state sponsor of terrorism which simply isn’t true. Saudi Arabia and their allies in the Gulf through their exporting of Wahhabism into countries where this medieval version of Islam is totally alien, and their continued attempts to destabilise secular Arab states, represent a far bigger example of exporting terrorism than anything Iran has done recently.

Ukraine, which Trump didn’t mention, is also a manifestly more prominent sponsor of terrorism than Iran. Whilst Trump has dropped the Obama/Clinton line that ‘Assad must go’, he fails to understand that the most concerted alliance fighting ISIS includes not only Russia but also Iran, the Syrian government and Hezbollah.

Trump did however grasp the fact that it has been through the weakening of the strong secular Arab states of Iraq and Syria (policies of both the Bush and Obama governments) that Iran has been allowed to take her place as a key regional player in the Middle East. 2/10

Arab Allies: Unlike Obama whose political interference in the Arab world has weakened secular Arab states, Trump pledged to support such states and referred to them as allies. Interestingly he contrasted such ‘allies’ with the enemy of Iran. Whilst this is understandable in the context of contemporary American politics, one could be forgiven for thinking this part of the speech was based around a political map of the Arab world from 1986 rather than 2016.

He named Egypt and Jordan as key US allies in the fight against ISIS, but when it comes to secular states fighting ISIS, Syria is of course on the front line. Until Trump has the ability to name Syria as a necessary ally in the fight against ISIS, this crucial portion of his policy will remain incomplete. He also failed to mention the importance of supporting a stable Iraqi government in the fight against ISIS and indeed if he is so anti-Iran, supporting a non-sectarian government in Baghdad would help his cause. Curiously he didn’t offer any proposals on how to solve the deepening crisis in Libya. 6/10.

Hillary Clinton: Trump’s criticism of Hillary Clinton was spot on. He spoke about her personal crusade to destroy Libya as being the disaster that it was and frankly still is. Specially, he mentioned that Obama’s cabinet was deeply divided on Libya and that former Defence Secretary Robert Gates said it was Hillary Clinton’s insistence on bombing Libya that was a decisive factor in a war which Obama has called a mistake but which Hillary Clinton still glories in.

He went on to say that the Clinton’s made $60 million in gross income when she was Secretary of State, that her email scandal showed she does not have the temperament or honesty to be in a leadership position, and that her policies in the Middle East turned what was in 2009 a small subsidiary of Al-Qaeda in an Iraq on the verge of recovering from civil war into ISIS.

He described her time as US Secretary of State as a catastrophe pointing to the fall of strong secular Arab regimes to be replaced by ISIS, which the US helped to create as a matter of policy and which, as we now know thanks to Wikileaks, the US had a direct hand in aiding. 10/10

NATO: Trump applauded NATO for setting up an anti-terror task force and claimed that his statements that NATO is obsolete because of its inability to address the ISIS threat may have helped push global thinking in this direction. To be fair, he did not take direct credit for this but instead implied an indirect credit in the form of being able to forecast a crucial event. He did not speak of the ‘freeloaders’ of NATO but nor did he say anything about the importance of NATO in Europe. NATO of course has no importance in Europe other than to threaten Russia, and Trump’s calls for the bloc to realign itself and work with Russia against ISIS can only be described as positive. 9/10

Obama: Trump carefully defined Obama as incompetent on foreign policy whilst portraying Hillary Clinton as openly devious, zealous and irresponsible. Whilst this is obvious political point scoring, there is more than an element of truth to this. Trump referred to Obama’s erstwhile Middle East charm offensive descending into Clinton’s harm offensive. Trump also chastised Obama’s lack of willingness to say the words “ISIS” and “Islamic terrorism”. 9/10

Oil: Trump insisted that if America had ‘kept the oil’ ISIS would have been financially crippled. This is something of a straw man argument. On the one hand it is true that ISIS has been using captured Iraqi oil to make their money and that Turkey and others have helped facilitate these transactions. It is also true that if US tanks and heavy arms had been guarding the oil refineries, ISIS with their small arms, would not have been able to capture them.

Yet at the same time, this is part of the arrogance of American policies which assume that Iraq doesn’t have the right to at least try and regain the sovereignty ,it lost, first following Bush’s and Blair’s invasion, then as a result of a prolonged civil war and now in the war against ISIS. Ultimately Iraq must be a sovereign nation, free of terrorism and ideally free from blood soaked sectarianism. 5/10

Ideology: The low point of the speech was when Trump implied that so-called ‘honour killings’ in countries like Pakistan are somehow a matter of international affairs. They are not. It is easy to condemn such practices as most level headed people of any and all religious backgrounds have done. But to imply that an internal social problem in countries like Pakistan are the business of the United States or any other state is simply incorrect. Apart from being an internal Pakistani issue, it should be something discussed by the UN and World Health Organisation but nothing beyond this.

He then went on to speak of the importance of shutting off ISIS’s access to the internet, something which is more or less impossible and is furthermore a slippery slope to other forms of censorship.

His only sentient point in this part of the speech was when he raised the issue of some sensible screening of refugees before they are allowed into a country so as to make sure that they are who they say they are.  Whilst similar statements drew criticism earlier this year, the abject failure of Merkel’s ‘come as you are’ policy has made people the world over think that a new way of doing things is necessary. Whether it’s Trump’s way or some other way remains to be seen. 3/10

Summary: On the whole, Trump’s focus on ISIS, his silence on non-existent treats in Europe and his willingness to support a broad coalition against ISIS is admirable and correct. He may not quite get how broad this coalition ought to be, but he’s still miles ahead of his opponent in this sense. Whilst Trump’s speech was imperfect on foreign policy it is better than the alternatives any serious contender for the White House has offered in years.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Notify of


Every dirty Democrat trick shows in bid to oust Kavanaugh

American democracy truly is mob rule now, and the mob is stupid, with no one taking a moment to truly consider the situation.

Seraphim Hanisch



The most amazing thing about what is ostensibly the last minute “Hail Mary” smear campaign by the left against Judge Brett Kavanaugh is how utterly transparently partisan it is. Let’s look at the list of tactics used thus far in this very dirty escapade:

  • Democrat Senator Diane Feinstein sat on this allegation for three months, until after the confirmation hearings were over (and after no other barnstorming tactic during the confirmation hearings worked against the nominee).
  • The accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, is a registered Democrat, and a feminist. RT notes that she appears to have a strong interest in politics.
  • Reports of “death threats” against Dr. Ford have been reported. This is a common feature of any anti-Trump attack, to relate him to some sort of “right-wing” radicalism. This radicalism does not exist among conservatives, but the media is determined to say otherwise.
  • Democrat Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, naturally, believes Ford’s story.
  • Every Democrat senator is in agreement that this matter should table the confirmation vote. Some Republicans were at first but appear to be backing away.
  • A woman Democrat senator,  Mazie Hirono, went on record telling men to “shut up and step up.” It seems abundantly clear that this assumes that there can only be one “step” that the men are expected to do. A second lady senator , Patty Murray of Washington, gave all men a warning against stepping off the plantation by saying “Women are watching.”
  • The Senate Republicans offered a chance for Dr Ford to testify on Monday. She refused, but now she is offering to come “next Thursday” – this is ten days later, past the October 1 start date of the US Supreme Court, and closer to the November Midterm elections.

We interrupt this list to make this point. The issues at hand are threefold.

First, the Democrats and other left-wing activists are terrified that they will lose the “Warren Court”, which is the name of the Supreme Court Justice who was a major left-wing judicial activist that enabled the Court to “legislate from the bench” along liberal policy lines since 1969. If Kavanaugh comes in, even if President Trump is somehow magically removed from office, his mark will remain on the Court for at least a generation. Of course, the removal of President Trump is predicated on the Democrats regaining control of the House, which actually looks somewhat likely if polling data is to be believed, and of course a Democrat Senate. (The actual tiny caveat that the President has done absolutely nothing which warrants impeachment will not be taken into consideration. He is to be eliminated. That is Democrat point number one, and make no mistake.)

Second, if the Judge is confirmed, it will look great on the President’s achievement list and energize his voter base even more than it already is. The result could be that the Senate expands its Republican majority, and gains Trumpian conservatives in its ranks, which would likely help the President continue his really great agenda. A defeat in the House that holds or expands GOP, again with Trumpian conservatives, would solidify this, and make it more difficult to stop Trump’s re-election and further solidification of reforms in 2020.

Third, and probably even more important, is that the possibility of a third seat getting vacated on the Court in the time period between now and 2024 is relatively high. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is the oldest Justice on the Court, and she is a raving liberal. If she retires (which she promises not to do), or if she is retired by the processes of old age, Trump can score a three-peat and get a third constitutionalist justice into the Court and that will signal the closure of one of the biggest avenues of liberal activism.

To return to the list, some of the further characteristics that make this situation patently obvious are these:

  • As reported in The Duran, the smear job is looking a bit ragged around the edges as time goes by. President Trump called Dr Ford’s bluff by saying he is interested in having her come to testify and that it would be “unfortunate” if she didn’t do so. Ford’s response was as shown above, to try and delay this testimony.
  • The Hollywood “sisterhood” is on record defending Dr Ford. For them, she’s right. She said Kavanaugh did this, so she is right. And why? Because she is a woman, a feminist and a Democrat. She is one of them. It would very interesting to know if the sisterhood would stand behind a conservative woman raising such a concern against a Democrat, but we have President Clinton to show how well that all went.

This by no means concludes the list of characteristics, but as noted earlier here, anyone that does even just a little critical thinking about this can see that this issue is no moral outrage, it is strictly partisan hackery, making use of the greatest weapon against conservative men put in use over the last fifty years – the sexual allegation from a woman, who must always be believed, because the woman is always right. 

The unfortunate truth is that this tactic works. It works because most men are actually gentlemen. We honor women, and we are taught to defer to them in America, because that is what a gentleman does. Feminism takes this characteristic of men, especially in modern times who really want to make sure they treat the ladies right, and it throws it back in their face in contempt. It is so bad it even has a physiological effect on men, who are now marrying less, and having fewer kids. There are even physiological changes that result from this abuse.

Further, there is an appalling lack of critical thinking in our society. The British news site, The Independent offers a poll with questions about the Kavanaugh case. The astonishing lack of critical thinking is clearly evident as the reader votes his or her thought and then sees the results for that question. Going through the questions and observing their responses can be very illuminating.

Dr Ford is demanding an FBI investigation, but she has no date, time or location attached to the incident she accuses now-Judge Kavanaugh of perpetrating. Rush Limbaugh did a great job at showing just how absurd this demand actually is, given these glaring areas of non-knowledge and we include some of that transcript below:

What would happen, let’s say — I don’t know — in the last 10 years up to last week if any woman had walked into any FBI office in the country and said the following: “Hi. I’m here to report that I was abused 35 years ago. I was — I was — I was at a party. Uh, I was 15, a little bit to drink, and a 17-year-old guy pushed me down on top of a table and laid on top of me. And then — and then and then I think — I think — a friend came in and did something and anyway they left and I was left locked in the room. And I want to you to investigate.”

Do you think if somebody shows up at an FBI office with that story, if they show up in person with that story, that the FBI is gonna give it any time whatsoever? The agents are gonna look at each other with kind of wary eyes and they’re gonna crack silent jokes to one another. I’m not kidding. You take this out of the realm of a letter to a crazed, partisan United States senator, Dianne Feinstein, and just move this into the victim walking into an FBI office, “It was 35 years, 34 years. I’m not sure where. But I know that when I was 15, I was at a party, and some guy jumped on top of me.”

So let’s say the FBI agent decides to actually take this further and in a very respectful way says, “Well, Miss, were you raped or injured?”

“Uh, no, not really.”

“Did you report this or tell anyone at the time, 36, 35 years ago?”

“Uh, no.”

“What year was this, again, that this happened?”

“Uhhh, I’m not — I’m not sure. I think it was 1982.”

“Where did this happen?”

“I don’t know! I don’t know. I was so traumatized; I don’t remember any of it. I just remember some guy jumping on me and I was drunk and — and I don’t know. But I want you to investigate it.”

“Okay. Ma’am, were there any witnesses?”

“Just the one friend of his that pushed him off, and then they left before he could do anything.”

What would the FBI do with this, if that scenario happened in one of their field offices? I will tell you what they would do: Zip, zero, nada. And the reason for bringing it up this way is to try to shine some kind of a different light on this and try to put this kind of allegation in some kind of context. The president is handling this in a quite fascinating way. He’s saying, “I hope she shows up. I want to hear what she has to say. I really hope she shows up. I’m very interested in what she has to say. We all are. And if she shows up and if she’s credible, why, then we’re gonna have to do something about that.”

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Russian Hierarch explains Ukrainian issue in detail (VIDEO)

A Russian Orthodox Hierarch explores the incursion of earthly politics into the life, pastoral activity and needs of the Orthodox Church.

Seraphim Hanisch



RT’s “Worlds Apart” interview program recently interviewed Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev), a hierarch who heads the Department of External Church Relations for the Moscow Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. The Duran has covered the crisis in Ukraine surrounding the activity of the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I, of Constantinople, intended to create a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church. This effort falls completely outside the normal and authorized operating procedures of the Orthodox Church, but to the lay listener it is difficult to understand what the fuss really is all about.

Metropolitan Hilarion and Oksana Boyko do an excellent job with both the answers, but more importantly, the questions, since Ms. Boyko asks the questions that someone who knows nothing about the Church might ask. This situation is completely about politics and not about the true work of the Church, and Met. Hilarion answers these questions very completely and thoroughly.

One of the really interesting points that Met. Hilarion makes is the idea that the Ecumenical Patriarch seeks to bring about the creation of a fully independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church from these four groups:

  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate (which is canonical and which has not requested self-rule, called autocephaly
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Church “Kyiv Patriarchate”, led by Filaret Denisenko, which is a completely schismatic group. This group, and Filaret, are leading the charge.
  • The Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church – another schismatic group that is not in communion with Filaret’s church
  • The Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine – and this is truly interesting, because this group is not even Orthodox, but is an Eastern Rite group under the Pope of Rome, and is in fact Roman Catholic.

The notion of bringing together such a disparity of groups is stunning to the Metropolitan, and yet he understands the motives of the men driving this idea, President Petro Poroshenko of Ukraine, Patriarch Bartholomew, and Filaret Denisenko.

While the United States is not mentioned in this interview in any prominent sense, it should be noted that this move also does have strong US support as the American political leadership has been advocating for the Poroshenko government in an effort to continue to surround and isolate Russia. As we have noted elsewhere, this series of moves may well create more problems for Russia, by design.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


James Woods Suspended From Twitter Over Satirical Meme That Could “Impact An Election”

James Woods crushes Jack Dorsey: “You are a coward, @Jack.”

Alex Christoforou



Via Zerohedge

Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.

The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”

According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.

In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote. 

In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.

Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”

Nu-males everywhere non-threateningly smirk at Woods’ bad fortune…

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter