On October 23, the U.S. simultaneously "turned" on three fronts in military, domestic and foreign affairs: the U.S. military sank "drug-affected" ships in the East Pacific, President Trump temporarily cancelled the plan to send troops to San Francisco, and Vice President Wences in Israel encountered allies openly dismantling.
Will America’s “superpower” survive?
Fight without declaration. Whose bottom line will the US military fire this shot?
The U.S. military "operation" was selected in the East Pacific on October 23.
U.S. Defense Secretary Hughes personally announced that, under the instructions of President Trump, the U.S. Navy opened fire on a vessel "suspicious of drug smuggling", killing three people and sinking the vessel.
He also added, "We are fighting transnational crimes." It sounds like the police catching thieves, but if you look closely, it doesn't look like a simple "anti-drug mission".
Not to say where the ship came from or whether there really is evidence, the key is that the U.S. has not informed any country, nor did it specify whether it was licensed.
And this is the ninth U.S. military operation since September, the previous in the Caribbean, this time directly into the eastern Pacific, not far from Venezuela.
Unfortunately, on the same day, the U.S. B-1B strategic bomber was still flying around the Venezuelan coast, as if saying, “Look, I’m here.”
Venezuela responded quickly and immediately announced the launch of defense exercises in five coastal states. Although he didn't say who it was aimed at, everyone could tell which country's "script" it was being played.
The actions of the US military are becoming more and more like a gesture of "default legality": I don't need your consent, and I don't need your confirmation, I just want to act.
In the eyes of the international community, it is difficult not to be regarded as an "abuse of force." Some lawmakers from Latin American countries even asked: Is the United States trying to turn "anti-drug" into a cover for global law enforcement?
Most of these actions took place in ambiguous areas of international law, without the authorization of the United Nations or public evidence. It's like a self-appointed "police captain" walking into someone's house with a gun, saying your house has a drug stash, and then slamming your door.
This practice is not law enforcement, but provocation. Moreover, judging from the frequency and intensity, the real target of this series of military actions by the United States is probably not drug dealers, but geographical opponents.
Using the shell of “drug-seeking” and interfering with countries that threaten America’s interests, this is where it is worrisome: the U.S. military is increasingly doing the “presidential will” rather than representing national laws.
The president wants to fight and fight, and who limits this power of "strike"?
Who is afraid of Trump’s “repentance”?
On October 23, Trump personally announced the cancellation of plans to deploy the National Guard in San Francisco.
As soon as this news came out, people within the White House could not react. You know, the president was "confident" on Twitter a few days ago, saying that he wanted to "restore order" and fight "urban violence", claiming to send troops to several "out-of-control" cities, including San Francisco.
After a phone call, he changed his mind.
The other side of the phone was the mayor of San Francisco, Daniel, who spoke for less than half an hour and Trump openly said: “We don’t feel we need to send troops now.”
So what did the phone call say? No one knows the details, but it's certain that it's not a mayor alone that can make Trump "soft".
There are three forces behind it: one is Silicon Valley technology giants, such as Apple, Google, and Meta. San Francisco is their "back garden". Sending troops means street conflicts and investment risks. Technology companies collectively speak out, and the White House cannot fail to listen.
Second, California Governor Newsom made it clear that if the federal government forcibly sent troops, California would immediately file a lawsuit. This is not empty talk. In the past few years, Trump has lost almost every such lawsuit.
The San Francisco case would likely turn into a court record for “Trump’s 0:1 defeat.”
The third is public opinion. Just last week,"No King" demonstrations broke out in several cities across the United States, directly targeting the president's "militarily managing society." Internal White House polls also show that more than 60% of Americans oppose sending troops in cities.
This pressure is not just a matter of public opinion, but also a matter of votes.
Thus, Trump withdrew, and he did not want to send, but could not give up.
Especially in domestic affairs, once local governments, courts, enterprises and the public are attacked from all sides, no matter how tough the president is, he has to "weigh it".
This "repentance" is a realistic compromise that Trump faces in the domestic political game.The question is, if you are even at home, how to manage the international?
This question had a more direct answer in the Middle East diplomacy that night.
Being "slapped in the face" by allies, the Vice President's diplomatic journey became a "humiliating journey"
On the evening of October 23, US Vice President Vance called on Palestine and Israel to implement the "two-state solution" in Israel and oppose the annexation of the West Bank.
Before he finished speaking, the Israeli parliament passed a bill planning to formally annex part of the West Bank. Vance's team bluntly said that it was "humiliated", and the vice president himself made a strong statement against "unilaterally changing the status quo" before leaving the country.
As Israel's largest military aid country, the United States has previously been able to effectively restrict Israeli actions, but now Israel dares to "dismantle the table" during the visit of the US vice president.
U.S. policy in the Middle East has long been plunged into a “double standard” situation: on the one hand, claiming to promote peace, and on the other hand, allowing Israel to break the red line. For example, Israel has expanded settlements several times since 2023, and the United States has only responded with “preoccupation” without substantial sanctions.
This is loud, but the problem is that Israel hasn’t taken American opposition at all as a matter.
You know, the United States is Israel's largest military aid donor, providing more than $3 billion in support every year. It stands to reason that Israel should not "give face". But the reality is that the US side said "don't annex", while Israel insisted on "proposing a bill"; The Vice President of the United States came to the scene in person, and the Congress voted as usual.
What does this mean? This shows that the United States '"management ability" over Israel is declining. In the past, the relationship between the United States and Israel was "If you are strong, I will support you"; now it is "If you are strong, I will see your face." Allies no longer obey orders, but begin to listen and choose to do.
The vice president's "humiliation" is no accident, but the epitome of the decline of American influence in the Middle East. In the past, the United States played a role of "giving orders" in the Middle East, but now it has become a role of "beg you to be obedient". This diplomatic failure will also directly impact the credibility of American foreign policy.
Three faces of America can’t make a complete self-image
Looking at these three things on the same day, you’ll find one thing in common: America’s doing it, but the way it’s doing it, is increasingly like “testing the border”; and whether it’s external hardness or internal repetition, the result is “been hit in the face.”
The army abuses force abroad, domestic policies change day by day, and diplomatic occasions are humiliated by allies. This is not an accidental event, it is a systematic accumulation of contradictions.
The United States, as a superpower, has long been accustomed to “I say it.” but the times have changed, the opponents have become stronger, the allies have become more independent, and the country has become more torn. A United States that is both willing to maintain the old order and not willing to take responsibility will become “both hard and fragile” in action.
It seems that every decision is "showing off muscles", but in fact it is "overdrawing credit". This state of internal and external incoordination and disorganized chaos is the real problem in the United States today.
When presidential orders need to bypass domestic opposition, when “fighting crime” becomes a global excuse, when all allies dare to dismantle, how long will the United States be able to maintain its self-proclaimed “world leadership”?
The situation in the United States today is no longer a "casual mistake", but a "systemic shortage".
How long can the United States continue to "play" like this? If there are not enough trump cards, who will be willing to play with it?