America has not had a “foreign policy” since Donald Trump became President in January 2017. What it has had is a series of statements, tweets, policy proposals and initiatives that, when viewed in perspective, reveals little in the way of a consistent, comprehensive, approach to interacting with our foreign friends and foes. Some review of the recent past is in order.

Towards Canada and Europe, early positive relationships that began at the onset of the Trump administration, quickly led to broken personal relations, trade conflicts, and outright hostility. In Latin America, threats to invade one country (Venezuela), and little diplomatic interaction and immigration tensions with the rest of the continent, have produced nothing worthwhile. Trump called African nations “shit-holes,” and formal diplomacy has remained troublesome. In the Middle East, the Palestinians are effectively “missing-in-action” towards anything suggested by the U.S.  Most Arab states, with the notable exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a few of the Gulf Nations (who together represent an authoritarian-led coalition),  can’t figure Trump out.  With Iran, war is threatened should they not conform to American desires. Of course, Israel loves Trump while ignoring, I believe, a grim reality: Israeli leaders are selling their Jewish souls as a result of a relationship with Trump that is placing their country in existential jeopardy.

In Asia, the Chinese play a dangerous game of trade war with the U.S., while the  North Koreans have run a successful–and also dangerous–bluff around Trump by catering to his stupidity and ego. Such brinksmanship can have severe consequences for each player.

With Russia, the logical evidence reveals a trail of insidious activities that seem to indicate the possibility of treasonous activities on Trump’s part. His puzzling relationship with Vladimir Putin only lends credence to that thesis.

So, where does all this lead in seeking to formulate and then implement a foreign policy for the United States that is rational and promotes our security?

Usually, policymakers rely upon their conception of national interest as a lodestone for devising policy. But, if that guidepost is centered on the concept that for the leader “I am the state,” only the formulator wins. That’s what we have now. Trump recently proclaimed that voters for Republican candidates were voting for him, although he wasn’t on any ballot anywhere in the country. While politically we can shrug, in terms of foreign policy that sort of transference can have the most severe consequences.

A series of misguided policy steps and a process of incoherent policy formulation, will eventually erode our security. Presidents must carefully assemble and rely upon advisers who understand history, economics, and politics. Within this administration we see nativists, egomaniacs and fools. Conceptually, we must get our act together before policies become irreparably damaged. I seriously question whether the bigger concern is Donald Trump, Kim Jong-Un, or Vladimir Putin? Do we really want any of their fingers on a nuclear button?