Trump’s selection of David Friedman as U.S. Ambassador to Israel is his most dangerous to America’s national security interests to date.
His other appointees may be against the very agencies they have been selected to head or cozy with the Russians, but the damage they can cause is of a limited nature and can mostly be undone by the next administration. They are in many ways similar to the anti-agency people Reagan appointed to head agencies. For example, James Watt was a disaster at Interior, but the damage was not irreparable.
One could make the argument that retired Lt. General Flynn is equally dangerous given the sensitive post he will have. I assume there will be a lot of saber rattling, that’s Trump’s style, but with the intent of intimidating, not going to war. But there is always the danger of miscalculation and the U.S. getting pulled into a war it did not want. That is certainly a risk if the other party does not back off of war. And that is where the safety trigger lies; many countries like to bully, but most don’t want war. Only rebels want war. And so although Flynn is perhaps scarier, I don’t think he is more dangerous to our national security interests.
David Friedman, on the other hand, will in all likelihood wreak a more devastating havoc on the United States as well as Israel. His support of the Israeli far-right will smash any possibility of peace between Israel and the Arabs, could well lead to all-out war in the area, and will be a clarion call for increased jihadist terrorist activity against the U.S. both at home and abroad.
His appointment must not be approved by the Senate.
