Every American president has had his own particular philosophy when it comes to US international relations. Some have been animated by globalism, while others have been of a more nationalist or isolationist bent. These unofficial foreign policy doctrines are sometimes made clear during presidential campaigns, but often they remain undefined through the initial phase of a presidency when events on the ground test the resolve of the commander-in-chief. While he has been unambiguous for a decade about his desire to both strengthen our military capacity and steer clear of foreign conflicts to the greatest degree possible, President Donald Trump’s principles regarding America’s relationship with the world certainly crystallized with his decision to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.
Peace through strength has been the unifying theme of both Trump presidencies. But there has been considerable disagreement in the MAGA world and among conservatives as a whole over precisely what that should mean. Some, such as longtime Trump ally Steve Bannon, view themselves as America-First isolationists who oppose most all foreign involvements, arguing that we are bound to sully ourselves should we get involved in another country’s problems. Others, like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, are of a more hawkish bent, believing the US must aggressively and proactively protect its interests overseas when clear and present threats arise. And then there are those such as Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who are true war hawks, tending to favor military involvement more often than not.
Until now, there had not been a clear and consolidated Trump Doctrine. But at a fundraising event in Ohio on Tuesday, June 24, Vice President JD Vance laid out the foundational elements that summarize the president’s ongoing beliefs about foreign policy following his strike on Iran:
“What I call the Trump Doctrine is quite simple: Number one, you articulate a clear American interest and that’s, in this case, that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. Number two, you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. And number three, when you can’t solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”
Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick
Rather than the traditional categories of hawk, dove, globalist, nationalist, or isolationist, Trump might best be described as something else: a foreign policy realist. He sees things the way they are rather than how he wishes them to be. And this extends to another critical area of international relations, namely trade. Trump understands when either honey or vinegar is required to bring nations into his desired trading partnerships. Some countries need the carrot of coddling, others the stick of scolding. But beyond all else, the president understands that countries engaged in robust trade with each other are far less likely to engage in hostilities.
Unlike globalists such as Biden and Obama, who committed to seeking the approval of our allies on critical decisions, Trump is willing to act in America’s interests first – and, if necessary, alone – by using every bit of the leverage that comes with being the world’s leading superpower, as he demonstrated in Iran. He has also stated repeatedly that our allies must have more skin in the game, which is why he pushed successfully for NATO countries to commit a previously unthinkable 5% of their gross domestic products to the defense of the alliance. The message was simple: If you want our protection, you must share generously in the cost. It is safe to say Joe Biden and Barack Obama would never have made such a move for fear of upsetting the post-Cold War global order.
So, how does this Trump doctrine resemble or differ from those of past presidents? Well, the philosophy most similar to Trump’s might be that of Teddy Roosevelt, who famously intoned, “speak softly and carry a big stick.” This translates to the US assuming a measured and restrained diplomatic approach while also maintaining a strong and credible threat of force. In other words, be polite and reasonable in your interactions, but also be prepared to use power or force if necessary to achieve your goals. This is the exact course followed by Trump with Iran. He did not unleash vitriolic, moralistic attacks on the Iranians, opting instead to calmly call for a 60-day negotiating window while repeating the mantra employed by every president since the Islamist revolution in 1979: They cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
But unlike his predecessors, Trump issued a specific threat, promising to employ the most powerful non-nuclear bombs in the American arsenal to enforce his will if Iran refused to bargain in good faith. And then he did exactly that. This sent the unmistakable message to the regime in Tehran and the rest of the world, most especially Iran’s fellow “Axis” powers China, Russia, and North Korea, that this 47th president will back up his words with action. This stands in stark contrast to recent presidents who either made empty threats, signaled that foreign aggression would not be met with an American response, or took preemptive or premature action that proved unwise or disastrous.
Trump Departs From Globalism and Empty Threats
Barack Obama famously drew a “red line in the sand” regarding Syria and its use of chemical weapons, but when the Syrians called his bluff, Obama got cold feet and failed to make good on his threat. The world soon realized that, unlike Trump, Obama’s words could be taken with a grain of salt. Obama was a classic globalist who stated that he “view[s] our security in terms of a common security and a common prosperity with other peoples and other countries”.
In glaring contrast to Trump’s America-First worldview, Joe Biden told allies: “The transatlantic alliance is back. The US is determined to consult with you.” When he famously declared that he would not take action if there was a “minor incursion” by Russia into Ukraine, he was all but inviting Vladimir Putin to invade with no threat of reprisal.
George W. Bush decided to start a war in Iraq based on dubious intelligence that Saddam Hussein possessed nuclear weapons, and the result was an unwinnable quagmire. Bush believed in waging a preventive war against potential aggressors before they are capable of mounting attacks against the United States. And while that may sound similar to Trump’s strike on Iran, the glaring difference is that Bush committed ground troops to the war, all but assuring a lengthy conflict, while Trump is loath to do so, which is why he decided on the one-and-done bombing of Iran. In fact, it was Bush’s war to bring democracy to Iraq that stained the Republican brand and set the stage for the rise of Trump.
In the end, the Iran strike and subsequent ceasefire between the Iranians and Israelis represent the true outpicturing of the Trump doctrine. He came, he saw, and he conquered Iran’s nuclear threat. Then he got out of Dodge, forged a tentative cessation of hostilities, and invited Iran back to the bargaining table rather than seeking regime change. This undoubtedly puts the US in a place of greater strength and credibility on the international stage than it has demonstrated in many years. As Ronald Reagan proved decades ago in hastening the demise of Soviet communism, peace through strength is more than just a slogan.
