• JD Vance’s (Republican VP candidate) “America First” policy makes an exception for advocating for continued military aid and strong US-Israel ties.
• Vance’s support for Ukraine is cautious and conditional, questioning the strategic benefits and urging Europe to take a larger defence role.
JD Vance, the 39-year-old Ohio senator, has emerged as a pivotal figure in the Republican party, especially after being selected by Donald Trump as his vice-presidential nominee for the upcoming November election. His rise to prominence, catapulted by his bestselling book-turned-movie Hillbilly Elegy, has been marked by a distinctive foreign policy stance that starkly contrasts his approach towards Ukraine and Israel. Vance’s “America First” policy, which generally advocates for a cautious and restrained US involvement in foreign conflicts, appears to make a notable exception when it comes to Israel.
Vance’s unwavering support for Israel is deeply rooted in both strategic and personal beliefs. Following October 7 last year, Vance quickly attributed responsibility to the Biden administration, asserting that American tax dollars had indirectly funded the Hamas. This incident highlighted Vance’s staunch advocacy for a robust US-Israel alliance, which he believes is crucial for maintaining stability in the volatile Middle East. According to Seth Eisenberg, CEO of the PAIRS Foundation, Vance views Israel as essential to protecting US interests in the region and firmly supports continued military aid and close diplomatic ties. However, it seems like the breaches of stability are almost always at the hands of the Americans and Israelis themselves.
Vance’s support for Israel however transcends political strategy; it is also driven by his Christian faith. In a speech at the Quincy Institute, he emphasised the spiritual and historical significance of Israel to many Americans, including himself. This personal conviction reinforces his belief that US foreign policy will always prioritize Israel, regardless of broader geopolitical considerations. This is severely hypocritical as it was reported in May that 3% of Gaza’s Christians have been killed. Domestically, Vance has been proactive in defending Israel’s interests. He has opposed special immigration protections for Palestinians and introduced legislation to withhold federal funds from colleges that host anti-Israel protests, showing his commitment to having an unconditional alliance with Israel.
In contrast to his unequivocal stance on Israel, Vance’s approach to the Ukraine conflict is notably more cautious. He has consistently questioned the extent and objectives of US involvement in Ukraine, arguing that the conflict lacks a clear endpoint or strategic benefit for the United States. Speaking at the National Conservatism Conference, Vance criticised the ongoing support for Ukraine, suggesting that Europe should bear a greater share of its own defense. This is something that Donald Trump himself has advocated for in the past.
Vance’s reluctance to fully commit to Ukraine is also influenced by practical considerations. He has pointed out the limitations of US munitions production, arguing that America cannot sustain multiple large-scale military commitments simultaneously. This pragmatic viewpoint aligns with his broader foreign policy vision, which prioritises addressing threats from China over entanglements in Europe.
Vance’s foreign policy doctrine highlights a significant divergence within the “America First” framework. While he advocates for reduced US involvement in global conflicts and greater burden-sharing by allies, his stance on Israel remains an exception.
In summary, JD Vance’s foreign policy reflects a conditional approach towards Ukraine, where support is tempered by strategic and logistical concerns. In contrast, his support for Israel is unwavering and comprehensive, driven by both strategic imperatives and personal convictions. As Vance steps onto the national stage as a potential vice president, his distinctive foreign policy positions will undoubtedly influence the future direction of US international relations.
