A second Trump presidency is giving supporters hope of a continuation of his first-term policies, while critics worry that he’ll isolate the U.S. on the global stage at a delicate time for the international security landscape.

Richard Goldberg, senior adviser at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and a former Trump administration NSC official, told Fox News Digital he sees a second Trump term as ‘going back to the basics of peace through strength [and] restoring deterrence.’ 

‘They’re prioritizing China as our top threat to national security,’ Goldberg said, referencing the campaign’s platform. ‘Investing in our military, modernizing our military, expanding the use of AI and space, to ensure that we are able to overpower the CCP and Beijing and its wider access around the world.’

Trump’s foreign policy record has remained a key point of comparison between him and his successor, President Biden, with many arguing Trump took an isolationist ‘America First’ approach that damaged relations with key allies. 

‘Isolationism is about going it alone and about viewing America’s way of engaging the world as unilateral and independent and alone, as opposed to building multilateral alliances — a sort of unilateral mindset,’ Joel Rubin, a former State Department official during the Obama administration, told Fox News Digital.

‘The U.S. can’t always act unilaterally, but that doesn’t need to be the predisposition,’ Rubin argued. ‘Trump never ignored the world, no, but what his foreign policy was focused on was America acting independently and unilaterally, and that I think is where there’s a difference. The United States is a leader, not an independent actor.’

Golberg disagreed with that assessment, arguing people often ‘mistake populist rhetoric for isolationism … or, certainly, some sort of instinct not to use force when necessary to defend the United States.’ 

‘The president was tested by Iran, and Qassem Soleimani lost his life because of it,’ Goldberg said as an example. ‘There was that moment where I think President Trump demonstrated to all the enemies of the United States that he’s not an isolationist. He’s a conservative. That’s following basic conservative principles of peace through strength, willing to show deterrence … which means you have the capability, but also the will, to use force when necessary.’

Rubin lamented that Trump’s hard-line stance on NATO ally contributions to defense spending hurt relations between the U.S. and such a vital network of allies and worried what that might mean for the alliance at a time when Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine requires unity and strength. 

‘Turning away from American alliances has put us in a hole that we’re barely coming out of now, and, thankfully, Biden restored our alliances with NATO,’ Rubin said, adding that the deal to withdraw from Afghanistan, which Trump first brokered and Biden decided to uphold, ‘really put us in a weak position.’ 

That fear remains firmly in mind for European leaders as they worry about what happens next in the event Russia succeeds in subduing and conquering Ukraine. Jens Spahn, a lawmaker of Germany’s center-right opposition party CDU, told outlet DW during the NATO summit in Washington, D.C., last week that ‘we should not make the same mistake again’ with Trump.

‘No one really had a network with his team,’ Spahn said, explaining the several meetings NATO delegations had arranged with Republicans close to Trump’s camp, DW reported.  

Ricarda Lang, co-leader of the German Green Party, meanwhile, argued that Trump’s vice resident pick of Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, left little doubt that Trump would ‘deliver Ukraine to Putin’ after Vance said in 2022 that he didn’t ‘really care what happens in Ukraine one way or the other.’ 

Rubin acknowledged that Trump made some positive contributions to the global landscape, such as through the Abraham Accords, which he judged as ‘a positive contribution to the Middle East’ along with Trump’s handling of North Korea. 

‘I thought that it was very important for him to do what he did with North Korea, in terms of making the effort to engage and speak with Kim and seek progress on the nuclear program,’ Rubin said, though he noted that, ‘unfortunately, nothing really came out of it.’

‘I think the lack of a real commitment to its symptomatic program with North Korea was a loss when he had opened up something in a way that had not been done before, which I thought had a lot of promise,’ Rubin added. 

Goldberg defended several Trump-era policies as significant wins for American foreign policy, mainly touting global stability during the majority of Trump’s pre-pandemic administration. 

‘Russia was deterred from any sort of aggression in Eastern Europe — certainly not an invasion of Ukraine,’ Goldberg said. ‘Iran was running out of money, almost bankrupt. And after the killing of one of the world’s leading terrorists, Qassem Soleimani, they stopped expanding and escalating their nuclear enrichment.’

‘Israel was not facing a seven-front war, and, obviously, other actors, most importantly, China, had to think about what was next as the United States was investing more in its military, spending more on its defense industrial base, trying to finally accelerate what was needed to compete with China and potentially win a war in the future against China,’ Goldberg added. 

He acknowledged, though, that Trump faced typical growing pains for a new president when he took office and was slow to begin some of his more effective policies, such as the ‘maximum pressure’ campaign on Iran. 

‘I think his instincts are always to do the unexpected, to do something that hasn’t been tried before,’ Goldberg argued. ‘If everybody’s tried doing things the same way and it hasn’t achieved the right result, maybe there is a different approach. And I think we’ll see more of that in a second term.’

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken warned on Friday that Iran could produce fissile nuclear material in ‘one or two weeks’ as the State Department renews a sanctions waiver for Iraq to buy Iranian energy.

Critics were quick to blame the Biden administration for enabling Iran to pursue nuclear weapons by allowing the rogue nation to sell its oil. Biden reversed many of former President Trump’s tough sanctions against Tehran.

‘What’s breathtaking is the complete lack of self-awareness that it was his own maximum deference policy that brought us to this moment, and worse, that his solution is to double down on the failed appeasement strategy,’ Rich Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and former Trump administration NSC official, told Fox News Digital.

‘Rather than snapping back the U.N. sanctions and testing maximum pressure, the administration just extended a sanctions waiver and is conducting indirect negotiations via Oman,’ Goldberg lamented. 

Blinken spoke this week at the annual Aspen Security Forum in Colorado, addressing Iran’s march toward a nuclear weapon and admitting that ‘instead of being at least a year away from having the breakout capacity of producing fissile material for a nuclear weapon, (Iran) is now probably one or two weeks away from doing that.’ 

Blinken blamed the collapse of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) – commonly known as the Iran Nuclear Deal – for Iran’s accelerated development. He stressed that the U.S. has not seen any evidence to suggest Iran already has a nuclear weapon, Barrons reported. 

Iran’s acting Foreign Minister Ali Bagheri claimed that his country remained committed to the JCPOA, insisting that ‘America has not yet been able to return’ to the deal and that Iran seeks a return to the 2015 deal.

‘We are not looking for a new agreement,’ Bagheri told CNN earlier this week. ‘Neither I nor anyone else in Iran has not talked and will not talk about a new agreement. We have an agreement (signed) in 2015.’

Iran continues to receive sanctions relief through waivers that the U.S. has issued since the Trump administration in 2018, allowing Iraq to import energy from Iran for 120 days at a stretch. The latest renewal occurred on July 11 as Iraq suffered widespread power outages due to the unbearable heat overloading power grids across the country, MEHR News Agency reported. 

‘’We have renewed this waiver for the 22nd time, and it is about the department permitting Iraq to purchase Iranian electricity while Iraq continues to develop its domestic generation capacity,’’ US State Department Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel said at a press briefing.

‘’It is a waiver authority that allows the purchase of electricity over a certain period of time, in this case, 120 days, so it’s permission for an activity over a period of time,’’ Patel told Iraqi news outlet Rudaw. 

‘’We have, over the past decade, seen some measurable steps of Iraq weaning off Iranian electricity,’’ Patel added. ‘Currently, we anticipate that they are relying on Iran for about 25% of their electricity. A number of years ago, that number was 40%.’

Blinken reiterated this point, saying that Iraq has doubled its domestic output, but many American politicians remain concerned that Iran benefits from these waivers and have used the funds to help continue developing their nuclear weapons program. 

The Biden administration insists that the funds remain out of reach for the Iranian government, instead funneling through third-party ‘restricted accounts’ that can only purchase food, medicine, medical devices, agricultural product and other non-sanctionable transactions.

Critics, however, argue that it displaces funding requirements for Iran and frees up the country’s spending so that money it would have otherwise put towards those purchase now goes toward funding its proxy groups and developing nuclear weapons. 

‘Let’s be honest with the American people and understand that Hamas knows, and Iran knows they’re moving money around as we speak, because they know $6 billion is going to be released. That’s the reality,’ Nikki Haley said last year when news broke that the State Department had agreed to release funds in exchange for U.S. prisoners in September. 

Behnam Ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies with a focus on Iranian security and political issues, told Fox News Digital that the Biden administration has remained on ‘auto-pilot’ and pursued ‘short-sighted’ policies when it comes to Iran, at their own peril. 

‘With stories about Iran-backed plots to kill the former president and reports of weaponization related work in Tehran, the last thing Washington should be green-lighting is yet another waiver extension that permits the Islamic Republic to free up revenues to continue to underwrite more global terror and domestic nuclear expansion,’ Taleblu said. ‘It’s one thing to see the need to help wean Baghdad off of Tehran and Iranian electricity and energy, but it’s another to continue to use this as a crutch for a better policy towards both Iraq and Iran.’ 

There is an increasing sense of division in the Republican Party when it comes to the U.S. posture abroad, particularly when it comes to countering Russia, as Sen. JD Vance, R-Ohio, joins Donald Trump as his running mate in the race for the White House.

The calls to stop military aid to Ukraine reflect a fundamental break in the party and a reversal to the long-held GOP neoconservative approach to foreign policy, which previously leaned heavily on an interventionist strategy.

Ronald Reagan famously held a ‘peace through strength’ approach, which relies on military power to preserve global stability, a policy that both the Bush administrations adhered to.

But the policies practiced by Republican Party leaders from the 1980s through the early 2000s have prompted a rise to a different approach in the GOP, a strategy not largely held since before World War II — isolationism. 

‘I do think that is a repudiation,’ Victoria Coates, a former deputy national security adviser to Trump, told Fox News Digital, pointing to the decades-long wars in the Middle East. ‘A rejection of the traditional establishment neoconservative stance, which favors military intervention to promote democracy.

‘I just don’t think that that’s been a winning formula,’ she said, noting many Republicans today agree, including Vance.

In a speech at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft in May, Vance made clear there are stark divisions in the GOP when it comes to foreign policy. 

‘We really have to get past the tired old slogans,’ Vance said. ‘The way that American foreign policy has proceeded for the last 40 years — think about the wreckage and think about the actual results.

‘People are terrified of confronting new arguments, I believe, because they’re terrified of confronting their own failure over the last 40 years.’

In his speech, Vance specifically pointed to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has been an ardent supporter of Ukraine and who became a senator the year Vance was born in 1984. 

‘Nearly every foreign policy position he’s held has actually been wrong,’ Vance claimed. 

The push by some in the Republican Party to back off aid to Ukraine stalled military supplies to the war-torn nation for six months and revealed the true extent to which Kyiv relies on the U.S. in its fight against Russia. 

While many in the GOP see Ukraine’s victory over Moscow as a vital security interest to the U.S., Vance and Trump believe it should also be Europe’s burden to shoulder. 

Unease among NATO allies over the threat of discontinued aid to Ukraine under a Trump presidency has prompted speculation that the security of Europe, and even the alliance, could be in jeopardy. 

Headlines this week reported ‘concern,’ ‘anxiety’ and a ‘nightmare’ scenario for Ukraine as Vance has unequivocally opposed continued aid to Kyiv and has instead pushed for a stronger stance when it comes to countering China. 

‘I think we should stop supporting the Ukrainian conflict,’ Vance said in May. ‘I do not think that it is in America’s interest to continue to fund an effectively never-ending war in Ukraine.

‘The second-biggest criticism I make about the war in Ukraine and our approach to it is that we are subsidizing the Europeans to do nothing.’

Trump first led the push in getting more NATO nations to meet their 2006 defense spending pledges, and the war in Ukraine has ensured that now 23 of the 32 nations are hitting the 2% GDP threshold. 

Some nations have not only hit their goals but have begun contributing well beyond their original pledge, including Poland, which contributes 4.12%. Estonia, the U.S., Latvia and Greece all give more than 3% and Lithuania contributes 2.85%.

Despite advances in international defense efforts, there is a fundamental divide in the GOP when it comes to the U.S. and its relationship with NATO. 

‘They’ve done a great job, and that’s terrific,’ Coates, vice president of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for National Security and Foreign Policy at The Heritage Foundation, said. ‘Unfortunately, their scale is not enough to really move the needle. 

‘We need the big economies,’ she added, pointing to Canada, which still only contributes 1.37% of its GDP to defense spending despite being the world’s 10th largest economy. ‘That just can’t go on.’

Experts agree it is unlikely Trump would fully pull out of the NATO alliance. Though there is concern he could weaken the alliance by cutting aid to Ukraine or by pulling U.S. troops out of Europe.

But while Vance has argued ‘America can’t do everything’ and therefore should focus on the threat China poses, Hal Brands, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C., argued it is not that simple.

‘U.S.-China competition is not simply a regional competition. It’s a global competition,’ he said. ‘It involves things like control of advanced technologies, as well as things like the military balance of power.’

Brand, who is also the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies, argued that the U.S. needs to maintain its European relations to leverage its influence ‘to choke off China’s access to advanced semiconductor manufacturing.’

‘Even if you think that China is the overriding priority in U.S. policy, you won’t be effective in dealing with China unless you have some degree of influence that the transatlantic relationship provides,’ he added.

There is growing concern among Republicans that adhere to a broad U.S. international presence that isolationism is on the rise, and there are security threats that that could pose. 

‘It has become all too easy to just assume that Europe would be fine after a U.S. departure. When history actually provides very little support for that idea,’ Brands said. ‘There’s long been this tendency to try to remain aloof from problems in other regions, and we saw that before World War II.’

It has long been argued that U.S. reluctance to involve itself in European affairs in the lead-up to World War II emboldened Adolf Hitler to execute his ambitions largely unchecked by the U.S. or its British and French allies, ultimately costing the Allies greatly. 

‘President Trump has said that the U.S. should not be involved in Ukraine because there’s an ocean between the U.S. and Europe. And that’s very reminiscent of American involvement you heard from the anti-interventionists in the 1930s.’

Vance has rejected the ‘isolationist’ label and said during his address at the Quincy Institute, ‘The fact that I oppose sending money that we don’t have to another country, or that borrowing money to send it is somehow, to me, that’s not isolationism.

‘That’s just fiscal conservatism.’