Trump Doctrine or Incoherent Coherence?

If all of Trump’s incoherence leads to peace around the world and a more cohesive international free market regime, it may be viewed as coherent. Unfortunately, on the domestic front, there seems to be a complete absence of any coherence

By Anil Madan

Even before the inauguration in January and the official advent of Trump 2.0, we knew that things would be different. The sense of mixed feelings was perhaps most evident when he was welcomed at center stage for the celebration marking the reopening of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris despite the foreboding that he was all but champing at the bit to cast Europe adrift and abandon Ukraine in the bargain.

Trump’s Foreign Policy: A Game of Strategic Hedges and Bets

In the two months since, Trumpism has been marked by agitation at home in the U.S., and on the world stage. It seems that almost daily, he throws chum into the waters to see what fish he can attract. Mostly, the chumming seems to be to attract the gullible media fish who amplify his every pronouncement and leave no doubt that he is the driver of the daily narrative of our lives.

And so it is, that for the umpteenth time, I too write about him.

The question posed to me this week was “Is there a Trump Doctrine and if so, is it all about disruption or necessary change?” Well, I propose that I should not answer that question. And why not? Well, because the answer would be pure speculation. But I suggest that we can view what he is doing as a combination of a Trump Doctrine of sorts and that there is an incoherent coherence to some of it.

A game of checkers

Putting aside all the disruption on the domestic front that is unravelling the federal government and rending the bonds that hold the coequal branches of the American state in equilibrium — and all without any discernible purpose — his moves on the international stage, while not rising to the level of a chess match, is nevertheless an interesting game of checkers.

If one were to write a play, there would be several scenes to cover (i) the Russia-Ukraine war, (ii) Israel and Gaza, (iii) the Houthis, Hezbollah, Hamas, and Iran, (iv) Europe, Greenland and NATO, (v) Mexico and Canada, (vi) China and Taiwan, (vii) the Arab part of the Middle East (by “Arab” I mean to exclude Iran), and (viii) the rest of the world (here, I mean to include India, Asia, Latin America, Australia).

One can safely say that Trump dislikes war and does not wish to engage the US in war. This is not to say that he is averse to attacking weaker targets such as the Houthis or as he did in the past with General Suleimani of Iran, to ordering low risk attacks on those who cannot retaliate. He seems to have a true fear of nuclear escalation and his desire to reach an agreement to reduce nuclear warheads seems genuine.

It is somewhat more difficult to say how much credence his expressed concerns about the killing in Ukraine or Gaza merit since he has ordered strikes against the Houthis and threatened Hamas with hell to pay if it does not release all the hostages. And, at least for a short while, he suspended military supplies and intelligence sharing with Ukraine which, in the view of some, led to more Ukrainian casualties.

Some of the incoherent coherence came through in Trump’s approach to establishing peace in Ukraine. He saw it as an opportunity to secure American access to rare earth minerals (which he referred to as “raw earth” during the infamous shouting match with Zelensky at the White House). In Trump’s mind, the presence of American mining interests in Ukraine would provide a sort of security guarantee against further attacks by Russia. So, am I a mind reader? Not quite. The same thinking was evident from the suggestion that the US would take over Ukraine’s nuclear plants.

And it wasn’t just those two bits of evidence. Trump has also suggested taking over Greenland for its rare earth minerals and to enhance the security of the US and that Canada become the 51st state of the US so that minerals and oil can be exploited and the geographical security of the US, Canada, Greenland, and by extension Europe, enhanced. There is a somewhat coherent thread here. The incoherence comes from not realizing that the Canadians have no interest in being annexed by the US. Whether the people of Greenland would be more amenable to becoming a US territory if they get independence from Denmark is speculative. But both countries would be more open to establishing stronger ties and closer cooperation with the US without being pressured to acquiesce to annexation.

If you think I’ve taken the argument too far, remember that Trump also proposed a US takeover of Gaza. The thinking here probably went beyond a mere real estate deal and was aimed at ensuring security for Israel. This was no different from the idea that US companies mining in Ukraine or controlling its nuclear plants would indirectly ensure security for Ukraine. So also, US control of the Gaza strip would eliminate one avenue for attacks on Israel. He has also proposed a takeover of the Panama Canal as a counter to Chinese influence in trade and on shipping routes.

Trump’s approach to Iran is also not entirely incoherent. He has sent a letter to the Supreme Leader of Iran inviting talks. The Supreme Leader has summarily rejected it on the grounds that Trump cannot be trusted. From an Iranian standpoint, Trump tore up the nuclear arms deal the US had made and cannot be trusted to honour any new agreement. It is also likely that the Ayatollah cringed at the Hobson’s Choice Trump proposed: either agree to give up nuclear weapons or face the threat of military action. Here again, Trump feels free to threaten the use of military force against a country that is likely too weak to respond or defend itself. And, of course, Trump’s threats to hold Iran accountable for Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis, reflect both an endorsement of Israel’s position and justification for the Hobson’s Choice offer.

Scuttling NATO

What about Europe? Is Trump really after dismantling NATO? I suggest not. He wouldn’t have hosted Mark Rutte, the Secretary General of NATO in Washington if he were hell bent on scuttling NATO. It seems to me that Trump’s goal here is to get NATO countries to increase their military spending. Trump probably realizes that in any showdown with Russia short of a nuclear exchange, the US will be the deciding factor. On the other hand, a stronger European component of NATO is probably the best deterrent against a Russian attack on Poland or Finland. Plus, and this is not much appreciated, the more Trump can persuade European countries to increase defence spending, the less competitive their companies will be with US companies. Trump’s expressed intention to bring Russia back into the G-7 and make it the G-8 once again reflects the not irrational idea that enhancing economic ties with Russia will yield dividends of peace.

Trump’s threats of tariffs against Europe, Canada, Mexico, and China should be understood in the grand context of increasing the competitive advantage of the US. The commitment by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) to invest $100 billion in a plant in the US should be seen in this light. But I must confess that I don’t see any part of Trump’s strategy as being aimed at protecting Taiwan except very tangentially.

He has previously complained about not wanting to come to Taiwan’s defence because they “stole” America’s semiconductor business. Whereas the charge is baseless, perhaps TSMC’s investment in the US which must have had the Taiwanese government’s blessing, is his way of providing an indirect American guarantee of Taiwan’s security.

One has to conclude from Trump’s changing position on tariffs from on to off, to postponed, smacks of using them as bargaining chips more than as a long-term policy. But one cannot know how sincerely he holds on to the notion that tariffs will generate revenue for the US government at no cost. Economists simply do not agree.

Trump has been working to bring the Saudis, UAE, Egypt, and Lebanon more and more into his circle. He has leaned on them to be mediators in resolving conflicts and perhaps even in helping to keep oil prices low to pressure Putin as he tries to work a peace deal.

Ultimately, a President who has been called “transactional” seems to like approaching problems by tying them to economic and business transactions.

If all this incoherence leads to peace around the world and a more cohesive international free market regime, it may be viewed as coherent. Unfortunately, on the domestic front, there seems to be a complete absence of any coherence as he tries to remake the US into something it has never been by destroying what is.

Cheerz…
Bwana

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 21 March 2025