Trump bombing Iran’s nuclear sites has raised many questions. Beyond the legality of it, the efficacy of it, the most important question raised is - was it strategy or foreign policy on the fly?
US Vice President JD Vance calls it the Trump Doctrine.
Speaking to a sold-out Ohio Republican Party dinner on Tuesday, Vance said it has three steps.
After articulating a clear American interest, number two involves trying to “aggressively, diplomatically solve that problem” and three if it can’t be done - “use overwhelming military power to solve it, and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”
Got to hand it to Vance. Dude has made Trump’s dodgy foreign policy -- that often looks unpredictable and inconsistent -- look like a well thought-out framework. But to most this is nothing but a rehashed version of the old ‘carrot-and-stick’ approach.
I call the recent foreign policy moves as unpredictable and inconsistent for a couple of reasons.
In the aftermath of the US bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, in another instance of Truth Social diplomacy, Trump floated the idea of regime change in Iran. He even gave the idea a makeover, and called it MIGA -- or Make Iran Great Again. This was a direct contradiction to what Vance and US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth said, as they insisted the "mission was not and has not been about regime change".
As history tells us, US attempts to change regimes in the Middle-East usually end in failure. That too, after years of death and destruction. Remember, Afghanistan? Or Iraq?
But, soon after he floated the idea, Trump declared a ceasefire in the Israel-Iran war. Now, Vance claims Trump's was a well thought out plan. Maybe, an attempt to assuage his alarmed MAGA base and the broader American population.
Some 79% of Americans surveyed in a Reuters/Ipsos poll two days after US’ intervention in the Israel-Iran conflict said they’re worried "that Iran may target US civilians in response to the US airstrikes".
Notably, Trump’s MAGA base voted for him because he repeatedly argued that the "stupid" US-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had left the United States in a quagmire and that he would work to avoid foreign entanglements.
The prospect of the US getting dragged into an extended conflict with Iran angered many in the isolationist wing of the Republican Party. Including prominent Trump supporters like former White House Chief Strategist Steve Bannon, conservative media personality Tucker Carlson and even MAGA firebrand Representative Marjorie Taylor Green. Green blasted “neocon warmongers” on social media, even as all three said they still supported Trump. Interestingly Vance who himself had embraced isolationism earlier, is now one of Trump 2.0's main messengers on the issue.
Most analysts believe that the term 'doctrine' is premature, that Trump’s approach is risky. But they will most certainly change their tune if Trump manages to build on this “spectacular” use of US force.
Believe what you want to believe. At least Trump isn’t forcing “nation building or forcing freedom into countries not ready or not wanting it.
At least, not yet.
