Since he assumed the presidency, Trump has adopted a non-strategic bravado in foreign policy style (I am borrowing this characterization term from Senator Chris Murphy).
His improvisations, though dangerous to our national security, speak to his electoral base, which praises the “America First” rhetoric. This speech also stirs emotions in that crowd, bringing back concerns rooted in the “Cold War Days” or the binary hawkish approach to complex issues in foreign policy. Trump talks and acts as if foreign policy and international conflicts were part of a Marvel comics series or a Cowboys movie.
The usual goodwill and hopes of the beginning of 2020 have been clouded with the prospect of war with Iran. In October 2015, the leading countries of the world including with the United States, the United Kingdom, France, China, Russia, Germany, The European Union (with the endorsement of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency) entered the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (known as the Iran Deal). In addition to controlling the regime of Iran and preventing it from developing nuclear weapons, according to experts’ opinion, the Deal provided a framework for diplomacy and de-escalation of the conflicting relationship with the regime of Iran and its regional intentions and ambitions.
Trump sided with the minority opinion (albeit popular to his political base or to people prejudiced or uninformed about the issue) whose pretense was to deny value to this multilateral agreement. As president, he stepped aside, breaking the U.S. commitment to all allies and rolling out an escalation of sanctions that, in his words, were enough and efficient to force the change in the regime of Iran. Here we are, exactly in the opposite scenario, at the brink of a major conflict that puts the U.S. and the world at danger. Even more, Iraq itself has condemned Trump for his action against Iran, which were allegedly executed based on intelligence to prevent conflict in the region.
Trump’s non-strategic, bravado approach also came with costs in Venezuela. Both him (and his team) said much about all options, including military intervention, being on the table to pose a “credible threat” to the perverse kleptocratic and authoritarian regime of Venezuela. Yet, this regime read the bluff and has survived sanctions, leaving the Venezuelan opposition and the country conflicted, suffering, and entrapped in a very complex and non-promising scenario.
And let us not forget the feud with Kim Jong-un. From bravado (ridiculing him as “rocket man”) to an improvised visit that made them “best loving friends,” we have shifted to a situation in which the strongman of North Korea has said his regime “could resume nuclear testing” anytime.
Unfitness to be President of the United States comes with great costs to our country and the world, as we are regretfully witnessing. Trump claims he acted in Iran based on intelligence to prevent a regional conflict, but it is hard to believe him for two fundamental reasons. First, he systematically lies about everything. Second, he has lived his presidency permanently at odds with, as well as undermining, the U.S. intelligence and national security community.
Now, we can only hope this escalation can be stopped by real experts maneuvering behind the scenes of the reckless leaders and rhetoric now seated on both sides of the table. In the meantime, Trump has put the world at risk. Perhaps just as an irresponsible electoral recourse.