Trump’s Foreign Policy Lacks Clear Doctrine, Analysts Say

Trump’s Foreign Policy Lacks Clear Doctrine, Analysts Say

Recent events show that the United States’ approach to foreign policy under President Trump does not follow a consistent set of guiding principles. Experts point to a lack of a clear “Trump Doctrine.” This means the country’s actions on the world stage might be driven more by the president’s personal interests than by a well-thought-out strategy.

The administration itself tried to outline its strategy in a document last November. This document, called a National Security Strategy, is something presidents usually do. However, this particular strategy seems to have little connection to what the Trump administration has actually been doing since March.

The strategy paper focused more on the Western Hemisphere and played down the importance of Europe. It barely mentioned the Middle East, suggesting that America’s past focus on the region was no longer needed because the U.S. Had become a major energy exporter.

Iran Campaign Highlights Policy Gaps

The National Security Strategy document only mentioned Iran twice. The first mention celebrated a supposed peace deal between Iran and Israel negotiated by President Trump. The second noted that U.S. Strikes had weakened Iran’s nuclear abilities.

It did not describe Iran’s ongoing nuclear program as a threat to the United States. The document did mention the Strait of Hormuz, saying America has key interests in ensuring energy supplies are safe and the strait remains open. It also stated the Red Sea must remain navigable and the region should not export terror against American interests.

However, the strategy document did not suggest the U.S. Itself could cause the closure of these vital waterways. This is despite the U.S. And Israel launching attacks on Iran starting in March.

The opening of the strategy paper actually argued that the U.S. Should narrow its definition of whfundamentally interests are. It criticized earlier administrations for having “laundry lists of wishes.” The strategy said these lists stated vague ideas instead of clear goals.

Actions Contradict Stated Strategy

The document’s advice to prioritize and narrow down interests makes sense on paper. But it doesn’t match what the Trump administration has done since early March.

Iran, on its own, does not pose and is unlikely to pose a direct threat to the United States. While Iran might threaten Israel, viewing Israel’s security as directly vital to the U.S. Could be seen as exaggerating the threat, something the strategy document itself criticized.

The reality is that there isn’t a clear Trump Doctrine guiding U.S. Foreign policy. The country’s actions are better explained by the personal interests and concerns of the current president.

President Trump’s thinking is often filled with past grievances, anger, made-up stories, and information he hears from news channels like Fox News. He seems to have convinced himself these are facts.

Personal Interests Drive Decisions

It appears President Trump initially favored a more restrained foreign policy, as suggested by the National Security Strategy. He reportedly advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu against attacking Iran last summer.

However, Netanyahu proceeded with the attack anyway. This Israeli strike on Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow created an opportunity that Trump seemed eager to join.

Following this, in early January, the U.S. Was involved in the capture of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro. This operation was risky but successful, and Venezuela’s new leader, Delcy Rodríguez, proved cooperative.

This success apparently convinced Trump that he had a powerful military tool. He believed he could use it with little cost and receive praise for it.

After the Venezuela operation, Trump was asked if there were limits to his international actions. He famously replied that only his morality could stop him. Prime Minister Netanyahu may have convinced Trump that Iran would be like Venezuela, expecting the regime to collapse quickly after initial strikes.

Confidence in Instincts, Not Institutions

By this time, Trump had developed strong confidence in his own foreign policy instincts. When asked recently about the war’s end, he stated it would end when he “felt it in his bones.” Foreign policy doctrines are important.

They are meant to guide and coordinate government institutions like the State Department, the military, and intelligence agencies. They should present different viewpoints and warnings to the president.

Currently, these institutions may not be functioning effectively. They are reportedly led by individuals seen as overly loyal to Trump, whose main goal is to stay in his good favor. Trump also relies on advisors like Steve Witkoff and his son-in-law, Jared Kushner.

Neither of them has the necessary experience or knowledge for wise counsel. The Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, is also described as a “clownish bully” with his own issues.

Unclear Goals, Personal Gain

Members of Congress, journalists, and foreign leaders seeking to understand the administration’s goals will likely not get a clear answer. The goals appear to be whatever President Trump believes will best help his political standing at home. Actions that could enrich himself and his family also seem to be a factor.

At one moment, Trump might demand regime change in Iran with “unconditional surrender.” The next moment, he might claim the Iranian regime has already changed or that Iranians have asked him to run their country. It is concerning when the world’s most powerful nation is guided not by clear ideas, but by the personal interests and needs of one leader. There appears to be no consistent Trump Doctrine, and therefore, no stable basis for the current world order.

Global Impact

Why This Reshapes the World Order

The lack of a clear foreign policy doctrine under a U.S. President creates uncertainty for allies and adversaries alike. Allies may question the reliability of U.S. Commitments, while adversaries might see opportunities to exploit perceived indecision or shifting priorities. This unpredictability can destabilize international relations.

Historical Context

Historically, U.S. Foreign policy has often been guided by established doctrines, such as the Truman Doctrine during the Cold War, which focused on containing Soviet influence. These doctrines provided a framework for U.S. Engagement abroad. The absence of such a guiding principle today means U.S. Actions might seem more reactive and less strategic.

Economic Leverage

While not explicitly detailed in the transcript regarding specific figures, the mention of energy exports and the Strait of Hormuz points to economic interests. Control over energy routes and supplies is a significant economic lever in international affairs. Actions impacting these routes can have global economic consequences.

Regional Alliances and Rivalries

The focus on the Iran campaign and the mention of Israel highlight ongoing regional dynamics. The U.S. Relationship with Israel, and its stance towards Iran, directly impacts the balance of power in the Middle East. Shifting U.S. Policy, especially if perceived as inconsistent, can alter regional alliances and encourage new rivalries.

Future Scenarios

One scenario is that U.S. Foreign policy continues to be driven by the president’s personal interests, leading to unpredictable international actions. Another scenario is that future administrations might re-establish a more traditional, doctrine-based approach to foreign policy, seeking to restore stability and predictability.

The author will continue to analyze these developments on his blog, “Frankly Fukuyama,” and the YouTube channel.

Source: There Is No Trump Doctrine (YouTube)