Radio ExpressTV
Live
Trump Buries His Security Strategy
Regardless of one’s opinion on the U.S. National Security Strategy published late last year, it at least clearly defined what the second-term administration of President Donald Trump considers America’s strategic priorities. However, once the strategy was released, the process of “strategic” decision-making in the United States abandoned it.
It is true that the new National Security Strategy’s focus on the Western Hemisphere was not merely a rhetorical shift. The arrest of Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro and the growing pressure campaign against Cuba clearly fit into the new strategic framework.
The new strategy also emphasized the importance of countering China, reflecting the broader shift in U.S. strategic priorities over the past decade. Although its language was less aggressive than previous statements, the document still considers preventing China from challenging the U.S. a strategic priority, not only in East Asia but globally.
On the other hand, the significance of the Middle East—an area that has drawn the U.S. into “endless wars”—was markedly reduced compared to previous administrations’ strategies. Trump’s National Security Strategy asserts that “the days of the Middle East dominating U.S. foreign policy in both long-term planning and daily execution are thankfully over.”
Yet, less than three months later, the U.S. strategy became unsettled. Trump recklessly plunged into a new major war in the Middle East with constantly shifting objectives. As the conflict escalates, the scenarios for resolution become darker and more complex. The U.S. risks losing by failing to secure victory, while Iran could succeed simply by avoiding defeat. A strategic disaster is slowly unfolding.
Trump may have been intoxicated by the power of the U.S. military after last year’s 12-day war with Iran and the tactical success in Venezuela in January, believing he could create another fait accompli in a matter of days. The ancient Greeks referred to this mindset as “hubris,” warning that it almost always ends in tears.
Or perhaps Trump was dragged into the conflict by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has sought for many years a U.S.-backed war with Iran. Netanyahu knew that Israel, despite its impressive military capabilities, could not withstand and win a comprehensive war with the Islamic Republic on its own; he recognized that with Trump, he finally had a U.S. president he could manipulate into a “quick stroll.” This dynamic also has a name: the tail wagging the dog.
Whatever the case may be, one thing is clear: Trump’s elective war directly contradicts the letter and spirit of the National Security Strategy he himself signed last November. The United States may become mired in yet another quagmire in the Middle East. It is unclear what this might mean for American power and the rest of the global economy, but the role of the United States is so central that it cannot simply withdraw from the chaos it has created (unlike Israel, which can rely on the threat of striking other nations in the region whenever it wishes).
Thus, Trump’s new isolationist “America First” policy has turned into a reckless adventure, jeopardizing the U.S.’s ability to accomplish the strategic priorities outlined in the National Security Strategy. With the war against Iran escalating, the administration is resorting to shifting vital American assets from elsewhere. Now, air defense systems are being transported from South Korea to the Middle East, and even the most crucial asset designated for intervention in Asia, the expeditionary naval force in Okinawa, is also on its way there. While previous U.S. presidents announced a “pivot to Asia,” Trump is steering the pivot back to the Middle East. There is no doubt that Chinese President Xi Jinping is now smirking.
As for Europe, it is reeling. Most Europeans view the Iranian regime as abhorrent and wouldn’t miss it if it collapsed. Yet few believe that the U.S. is capable of achieving regime change and stability in the region simply through bombing. Worse still, Trump has had to ease sanctions on Russian oil, and weaponry intended for Ukraine (which Europeans paid for) is delayed or being redirected. In the wake of Trump’s recent threats against Greenland, transatlantic strategic trust has eroded rapidly. The Europeans find themselves alone, and they know it.
Like Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin is one of the main beneficiaries of this grim scenario. Once again, U.S. attention is diverted from Europe; its weapons stockpiles are being depleted; and billions of dollars flow into the coffers of the Trump family, turning the world’s oldest democracy into a laughingstock.
A striking similarity exists between the total war Putin has chosen to wage against Ukraine and Trump’s war against Iran. In both cases, the fateful decision was made by an authoritarian leader who saw no need for careful planning or consultation with experts. Neither considered that their armed forces would fail to eliminate the enemy with a single blow.
But both Putin and Trump were mistaken. Putin’s “special military operation” has devolved into a protracted war that has resulted in over a million Russian casualties, while Trump’s “quick stroll” has lasted much longer and turned out to be far more costly than anticipated.
This serves as a reminder of the reason great powers create formal strategic documents in the first place. They focus leaders’ attention on long-term challenges, issues, and possibilities, as well as on scenarios to avoid. But they serve this purpose only if leaders take the time to read them.
