Reading the Signals

The inevitably-dubbed “Signalgate” controversy, which has roiled Washington and put the Trump administration back on its heels for the first time since taking office, is actually a series of embarrassments disguised as one single scandal.

It begins with a national security advisor who arranged a discussion of sensitive national security information on an unsecured digital platform and mistakenly included a journalist as part of the discussion. It continues on to a secretary of defense who shared military secrets online that could potentially put soldiers and pilots at risk. It then involved a director of national intelligence who doesn’t remember what she and her colleagues talked about in the group chat and a CIA director who was unfamiliar with federal government policy on the use of digital devices for sensitive information.

But underneath all the inexperience, incompetence and arrogance lies the true outrage. Because what Vice President JD Vance stated in that exchange — specifically his opposition to the U.S. conducting strikes against Houthi targets in Yemen, his belief that the Houthis are more of a problem for Europe than the United States and his doubts that it was in the U.S.’ interest to strike the Iran-backed group in Yemen — represents both the type of isolationism that preceded our country’s entrance into both World Wars and a fundamental rejection of our historic and ongoing support for Israel’s safety and security. The other Trump administration officials in the discussion are guilty of misjudgement and carelessness — embarrassing and regrettable but not impeachable offenses. But Vance articulated a philosophy that represents a growing danger for the U.S., for Israel and for our democratic allies throughout the world.

Vance told the group that he’d back the strikes publicly to “support the consensus of the team,” but noted that, “I just hate bailing Europe out again.” This argument makes it clear that the vice president of the United States does not see the Houthis as a significant threat to U.S. national security, ignoring evidence that the militant group had exploded a drone close to the U.S. Embassy branch office in Tel Aviv in July and was responsible for ongoing attacks on U.S. military vessels and allies. 

Vance’s comments underscored the growing divide between the neo-isolationist and neo-conservative wings of the Republican Party. “It was shocking to me that he didn’t see the need to strike back when they struck our naval vessels. That’s not a British problem or a European problem. Frankly, them striking our friends in Israel is more than enough justification. It’s the Tucker Carlson view of how to use military power,” said one GOP senator. 

After the leaked information became public, Democrats erupted in fury, accusing the administration of compromising national security through their careless dissemination of classified military information. Few Republicans defended the discussion, but instead worked to change the subject to the impact of the attacks.

The focus on the unintentional security lapses of the conversation seems to have overshadowed Vance’s purposeful articulation of a very worrisome policy turn for this country’s place on the world stage. Many of Vance’s ideological allies point out that Republicans were historically the party more cautious about U.S. international engagement and that their current skepticism about our country’s role on the global stage is merely a return to traditional conservatism. But that worldview was discredited by the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and American world leadership has since been reinforced by GOP leaders Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and two George Bushes.

The vice president’s willingness to dismiss the threat of Iran’s most powerful remaining proxy indicates that the “Israel exception” to conservative isolationism might be more precarious than we have been assuming. 

Just as Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and other Democratic elders continue to stand with Israel in defiance of heightened criticism from their younger and more progressive colleagues, it appears that a newer generation of conservatives are now coming to similar — albeit quieter — conclusions. Given strong evangelical support for the Jewish state, Israel is usually exempted from the head-in-the-sand isolationism that is increasingly in fashion among MAGA loyalists. But the vice president’s willingness to dismiss the threat of Iran’s most powerful remaining proxy indicates that the “Israel exception” to conservative isolationism might be more precarious than we have been assuming.

Dan Schnur is the U.S. Politics Editor for the Jewish Journal. He teaches courses in politics, communications, and leadership at UC Berkeley, USC and Pepperdine. He hosts the monthly webinar “The Dan Schnur Political Report” for the Los Angeles World Affairs Council & Town Hall. Follow Dan’s work at www.danschnurpolitics.com.