the 2016 presidential campaign has thoroughly scrambled traditional positions on foreign policy and international intervention, obliterating many of the usual partisan distinctions and presenting political challenges for whoever wins in november. hillary clinton, if elected president, would take a more aggressive posture than president barack obama on the international stage, according to her public statements and top aides. that would set her apart from the liberal wing of democrats led by sen. bernie sanders, who has called her too quick to back military force, as well as the anti-interventionist approach advocated by republican nominee donald trump and a growing number in his party. mrs. clinton<u+2019>s approach has given her an unusual set of allies, including from the national-security wing of the gop, whose members would normally back the republican nominee but this time rejected mr. trump and his approach. if she wins, a senior adviser said, mrs. clinton, before her inauguration, would pressure europe to renew sanctions against russia, which expire in december. aides say she also will take a more aggressive posture than the obama administration in syria, work to impose a no-fly zone, and will consider new sanctions on iran, despite tehran<u+2019>s threat to pull out of a new nuclear agreement if she does. the split between interventionists and noninterventionists in both parties suggests it might be difficult to reach consensus in washington no matter the election<u+2019>s outcome. <u+201c>i cannot recall a time when you had such an anomalous situation, where elements of both parties are arguing for a risk-averse, sort of withholding approach to the world,<u+201d> said aaron david miller of washington<u+2019>s wilson center, a senior diplomat in both republican and democratic administrations. the former secretary of state has for years taken a more interventionist approach than members of her party, including when she broke with mr. obama by advocating military action to topple syrian leader bashar al-assad. she voted in 2002 to authorize the war in iraq, though later called it a mistake. in an interview, mrs. clinton said she believes in combining the tools of american power, including diplomacy and development, to influence events. she pointed to her work gathering international support for financial sanctions against iran, which she has said helped push tehran to the negotiating table over its nuclear agreement. <u+201c>i think i<u+2019>ve been very clear that my position is in favor of what i called smart power<u+2026>that uses all the tools at our disposal, and military power always should be a last resort,<u+201d> she said. mr. trump has attacked mrs. clinton<u+2019>s foreign-policy record throughout the campaign, questioning her judgment both in the state department and senate. he has said she was too quick to back military operations in iraq and libya, and that the obama administration<u+2019>s nuclear diplomacy with tehran, which mrs. clinton helped initiate, resulted in a flawed agreement. the return of the isolationist right has propelled mr. trump<u+2019>s rise, and provides a sharp distinction to mrs. clinton<u+2019>s history and campaign positions. the republican<u+00a0>candidate has pledged to renegotiate or back out of trade deals with asia and latin america and<u+00a0>said<u+00a0>he would backtrack on u.s. obligations to the north atlantic treaty organization if members don<u+2019>t pay their dues. he has suggested traditional u.s. allies such as south korea and japan should develop their own nuclear arsenals and that he could create a working alliance with russian president vladimir putin. in an interview earlier this year, mr. trump rejected the idea that the u.s. should be an automatic guarantor of international stability, as it has been since world war ii. <u+201c>you have to be properly reimbursed for our tremendous services,<u+201d> he said. <u+201c>we can<u+2019>t afford it as a country. if they don<u+2019>t pay up we have to be prepared to walk and they<u+2019>ll have to defend themselves.<u+201d> while mr. trump<u+2019>s positions have resonated with republican voters, they have drawn criticism from lawmakers who favor a more interventionist posture. <u+201c>the problem with trump is he<u+2019>s embraced reagan rhetoric wrapped around isolation,<u+201d> said sen. lindsey graham of south carolina, one the most hawkish members of the gop. mrs. clinton, he said, has the right inclinations, though he isn<u+2019>t sure she will act on them, partly due to pressure from other democrats. <u+201c>i think her instincts will be to be more aggressive,<u+201d> he said. mrs. clinton would still not be the first choice of many republicans, especially those who criticize her for her association with obama administration policies such as fallout from regime change in libya and a reset in the u.s. relationship with russia when she was secretary of state. they also fault her for backing the iran nuclear deal and mr. obama<u+2019>s establishment of diplomatic relations with cuba. from her left, mrs. clinton would<u+00a0>have to contend with democrats who support mr. obama<u+2019>s elevation of diplomacy over military power and embrace of traditional u.s. adversaries such as iran, cuba and russia. rep. tulsi gabbard, a 35-year-old veteran of the iraq war elected to congress in 2012 from hawaii, is among the party<u+2019>s dovish crowd. <u+201c>we need to end these interventionist wars that have cost our countries trillions,<u+201d> ms. gabbard said. some democrats laud mr. obama for the nuclear deal he forged with iran and his refusal to launch military strikes against the assad regime in syria<u+2014>a decision of which mrs. clinton was skeptical, according to her political aides and current state department officials. <u+201c>if you were to ask an average democrat, <u+2018>should we be less interventionist abroad?<u+2019> you would get an overwhelmingly positive response,<u+201d> said rep. adam smith of washington state, the top democrat on the house armed services committee. write to jay solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com and laura meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com
foreign-policy debate scrambled by 2016 election - wsj
jay solomon laura meckler