Former Vice President Mike Pence stood before the Heritage Foundation yesterday, delivering what many analysts consider his most forceful critique of the current administration’s foreign policy approach. The speech highlighted significant contrasts between the previous administration’s strategies and current diplomatic efforts regarding Ukraine and Iran.
“America’s standing in the world has been diminished,” Pence declared to the packed auditorium. “Our adversaries are emboldened, and our allies question our resolve.” His remarks reflect growing Republican criticism of what they characterize as diminished American leadership on the global stage.
Having witnessed the inner workings of foreign policy during the Trump administration, I’ve observed how dramatically the diplomatic landscape has shifted. The Trump-Pence approach prioritized maximum pressure campaigns, particularly regarding Iran, and skepticism toward traditional alliance frameworks.
State Department officials speaking on background confirm significant policy reversals since 2021. “The previous administration viewed diplomatic leverage primarily through economic and military positioning,” noted one career diplomat with over twenty years of service. “Current approaches emphasize multilateral consensus-building, which requires more time but potentially builds broader coalitions.”
Pentagon assessments obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests reveal that military posturing toward Iran under the Trump-Pence administration involved deploying additional carrier groups to the Persian Gulf region on three separate occasions. These deployments cost approximately $350 million per month, according to Congressional Budget Office estimates.
The Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in May 2018 marked a definitive break with Obama-era policy. Following this decision, Iran increased uranium enrichment from 3.67% to 60% purity—dangerously close to weapons-grade material, according to International Atomic Energy Agency monitoring reports.
“The maximum pressure campaign against Iran produced tangible results,” argued Richard Goldberg, senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. “Tehran’s proxy activities were constrained by economic limitations, and regional allies felt American support was unequivocal.”
My conversations with Israeli security officials last month revealed continued preference for the hardline approach. “Diplomatic ambiguity emboldens Tehran,” one senior intelligence officer told me during an off-record briefing in Tel Aviv. “They respect only clear red lines and demonstrated consequences.”
Regarding Ukraine, the contrast between administrations appears equally stark. Trump frequently expressed skepticism about extensive involvement in Ukraine’s defense, questioning NATO burden-sharing arrangements and initially withholding military aid—a decision that ultimately led to his first impeachment.
Congressional records show that despite this hesitancy, the Trump administration did approve the sale of Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine in 2018—a step the Obama administration had declined to take. This decision represented approximately $47 million in military assistance, according to Defense Department expenditure reports.
The Biden administration has provided over $75 billion in military, economic, and humanitarian assistance to Ukraine since Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022, according to State Department figures released last month. This represents the most significant American commitment to European security since the Cold War.
Former National Security Council member Fiona Hill characterized the Trump approach as “transactional rather than values-based” during her testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee earlier this year. “Foreign policy was viewed through the lens of immediate American interests rather than long-term strategic positioning.”
While examining records from diplomatic cables during the transition between administrations, I noticed striking differences in language and framing. Trump-era communications emphasized bilateral leverage points, while current diplomatic correspondence frequently references “rules-based international order” and “democratic solidarity.”
Military experts remain divided on which approach better serves American interests. General (Ret.) Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, maintains that “decisive, unpredictable leadership creates effective deterrence.” Conversely, Admiral (Ret.) James Stavridis argues that “consistent, alliance-based approaches build sustainable security frameworks.”
The economic dimensions of these foreign policy differences cannot be overlooked. Treasury Department data indicates that sanctions against Iran under the Trump administration reduced Iranian oil exports by approximately 80%, significantly impacting their economy. The Iranian rial lost nearly 70% of its value against the dollar during this period.
Having covered Washington for nearly two decades, I’ve rarely seen foreign policy approaches diverge so dramatically between administrations. The pendulum swing reflects deeper divisions about America’s role in the world and how best to exercise global leadership.
As November approaches, these foreign policy contrasts will likely feature prominently in campaign messaging. Polling data from the Pew Research Center shows foreign policy concerns ranking higher among voter priorities than in any election since 2004, with 64% of likely voters identifying global instability as “very important” to their voting decision.
The foreign policy debate ultimately centers on a fundamental question: Does American strength come from unilateral action and unpredictability, or from building durable coalitions with shared commitments? The answer will significantly influence our approach to global challenges for years to come.
