Part One

Premillennialism and Foreign Policy

A large percentage, I would say 35% of the population, of Americans is premillennial.  Almost 100 percent of those were Trump voters in the 2024 election.  Premillennialism takes literally the Old and New Testament promises to Israel.  Amillennialism and postmillennialism are growing in the United States, but it is still a small, albeit loud, percentage of professing Christians.

Premillennialism takes what is called an Old Testament priority.  The characters of the Old Testament, as God revealed His Word to them, understood what they heard.  For instance, the promises concerning the Messiah were literal and fulfilled that way in the first coming of Jesus Christ.  A very low percentage of Jews believed that, but Christians did and do.

Abrahamic Covenant

I point to the Abrahamic Covenant of Genesis, which repeats itself multiple times in the book, starting with Genesis 12:1-3, but with an allusion in Genesis 3:15 and the seed of the woman.  God promised a seed, a land, and a blessing.  It was a unilateral, unconditional, and irrevocable covenant with an ethnic people.  You can add to that the Mosaic, Davidic, and New Covenants by God that apply to Israel.

In the present war in the Middle East, a large part of the support of the Israel comes from premillennialists.  You can add to that especially the orthodox Jews and then the Messianic Jews. If you went to an orthodox synagogue in Florida, almost 100 percent would have supported Donald Trump.  The two ideas coincide.  The Messiah is Jesus Christ, even if the orthodox Jews deny that.  However, they both look for a Messiah, who will set up a kingdom.

A Division

How are the eschatological positions applying to foreign policy right now?  A division exists in the Republican foreign policy.  The neo-conservatives are a very small minority now in the Republican Party.  Many went Independent or Democrat.

When I talk about the small minority, I’m saying The Lincoln Project, The Bulwark, the Bush/Rove/Cheney/Condoleezza Rice Faction, and the Romney/Murkowski/Collins/Nikki Haley/Mitch McConnell/(now) Mike Pence contingent.  Some still hang with the Republicans because they support more Trump ideas than the new Democrat Party.  Much of this side on foreign policy wants to keep sending billions or a trillion more to Ukraine and try to defeat Russia and Putin in a proxy war.

The same conflagration of new-conservative types support Israel in the Middle East, but they want a new world order with a muscular U. S. intervention overseas.  They still support the idea of nation building, perhaps going to back to an old NATO philosophy after World War II.  These are typically the classic free-traders and dollar diplomacy to force the spread of capitalism and democracy across the world.

MAGA and Historical Republicanism

The MAGA, American First foreign policy, as I see it, is split, but an avenue of cohesion exists.  The biggest group would take the following position and this fits Premillennial eschatology.  I would be in that thinking.  First, they reject the war in the Ukraine.  They want a diplomatic end to that war with the hope of better relations with Russia.  This includes ending NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, threatening Russian sovereignty.  This is not support of Putin.

The historical Republican foreign policy prioritizes America.  It secures the borders of the nation and strengthens the national economy.  Included in this is greater fairness in trade in combination with freeness and a return of strong American industrialization and business.  China makes less of the stuff America needs for a secure future.  This means less foreign intervention more in the spirit of George Washington in his Farewell Address.

Israel

A second aspect of the MAGA foreign policy relates to Israel.  The split exists here, because there is an anti-Israel faction in MAGA.  It’s also antisemitic.  You can find this also in the Christian nationalism movement.  It is not so totally innocent.  The amillennialists and postmillennialists abide here, a few premillennialists too, but with what I’ve read as a very odd sort of premillennialism.  The latter says that future support of Israel and trust in the promises of God do not necessitate, and could even preclude, present support of apostate Israel.

The premillennialist branch, the bigger one, of MAGA foreign policy can work with the smaller faction, which I believe includes now a name such as Tucker Carlson.  They might agree that the United States should allow Israel freedom to win in the Middle East.  The United States will continue as a supportive ally without its own military involvement, no more boots on the ground.

Premillennialists like myself would support a one state solution in Israel and an expansion of Israel territory.  This mirrors a belief that the Palestinians are in practice something like the Canaanites of the Old Testament.  They have no interest in cohabitation or peace with Israel in the land.  Israel can’t continue to live like this.  A one state solution is the most popular one in Israel today.  I think Israel should be allowed to form one state with the integration of like-minded Palestinians.

Conclusion

Peace in the foreign policy of the American First Movement revolves around an anti-interventionist approach.  The United States does not force its own foreign policy on Israel.  It supports an Israel First Movement in Israel.  At the same time, it neither sends financial aid to either Israel, Palestine, or any other Middle Eastern country.  These countries can trade freely and fairly with no advantage to either side.

What I’m writing fits a premillennialist approach and, I believe, it represents the present foreign policy in the United States.  It occurs in the most major way because of a belief in the promises of God to Israel.  It is also optimistic.  With the United States advocating for a literal approach to scripture even in its foreign policy toward Israel, it gives a greater opportunity for blessing on the country.

You’ve heard the mission credo, the church whose light shines the furthest shines the brightest at home.  I agree with the same credo for the United States.  Let’s stop intervening everywhere and get our own house in order.  We are not ready to spread a corrupt Americanism.  Only intervene against a direct threat to the security of the United States.  If an African country wants to outlaw homosexuality, the United States should not punish that country, but respect its sovereignty.  This will have a greater long term affect on the rest of the world, just being that original idea of a bright light shining on a hill.