Trump's path to Tehran: the making of a global bargaining chip

Asia Times

4 hours ago

The second Trump administration no longer needs to prove its foreign policy instincts.
They are clear, unmistakable and anchored in brute transactionalism. If the world learned anything from the former—and now resurgent—President Donald Trump, it is that he views diplomacy not as a delicate art of engagement but as a zero-sum game of power projection.
His latest rhetoric and posturing over Iran, especially in the wake of Israeli operations and heightened regional tensions, suggest a dangerous and deliberate strategy: to reduce Iran to rubble, not only for the sake of containment but to bolster American dominance in trade negotiations with China and recalibrate all relationships—friends and foes alike—on Washington's terms.
At the heart of this approach is Trump's insistence that Tehran must surrender unconditionally. This is not just hyperbole; it is a method. Trump thrives on spectacle and brinkmanship. His entire worldview is predicated on the belief that America is losing because it has been too nice, too generous and too forgiving.
Therefore, for Trump to extract what he perceives as 'better deals' from China, Europe, ASEAN, Mexico and Canada, he must first demonstrate that the United States is willing and able to destroy one of its most intransigent adversaries—publicly, unmistakably and with overwhelming force.
Trump's obsession with bunker-buster bombs is not new. During his first term, he repeatedly floated the idea of using high-yield ordnance to obliterate Iran's underground nuclear sites.
While the Pentagon and international allies balked at the prospect, Trump's inner circle entertained such military options as ways to force diplomatic capitulation. In Trump's view, diplomacy begins only when the enemy lies broken or at least battered enough to come to the table begging.
A full-fledged strike on Tehran, targeting its military-industrial infrastructure, would mark not only a significant escalation in the Middle East but a cornerstone of Trump's new foreign policy doctrine: militarized deal-making.
The point is not merely to neutralize Iran but to demonstrate to Beijing, Brussels and beyond that Trump's America is prepared to shatter international norms to reassert dominance.
By pulverizing Iran's defenses and forcing a surrender, Trump can create a shockwave that ripples through multiple geopolitical theaters.
First and foremost is China. Beijing, already embroiled in a tit-for-tat tariff war with Washington, is being forced to reconsider its risk calculus. A United States that can unilaterally take down a major regional power signals a willingness to escalate beyond traditional economic warfare.
Trump clearly wants China's leadership to understand that their negotiation counterpart is not a rational actor bound by global rules—but a strongman driven by prestige, leverage and personal victory.
Second, Washington's allies would be caught in the moral and strategic dilemma of either backing Trump's new militarist campaign or risking their ties to the US economy and defense umbrella.
Members of the European Union—especially France—may voice concern, but ultimately, many of them remain economically and strategically tied to the United States. The same dynamic plays out in Asia, where regional powers depend on US security guarantees while also being wary of American unpredictability.
Third, Trump can use the devastation in Iran to undermine Russia's remaining influence in the region. With Iran weakened, Moscow's capacity to counterbalance US interests in Syria, Lebanon and Iraq will be significantly diminished. In this sense, Iran becomes both a target and a message: defiance will be punished, and accommodation will be rewarded—on American terms.
Of course, bombing Iran is not without consequences. Trump's team understands the potential for a regional conflagration. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and the remnants of the Houthis in Yemen may launch retaliatory attacks on American interests and allies.
But Trump, emboldened by a Republican-controlled Congress and the politics of spectacle, is likely to argue that such blowback is manageable—collateral damage in a global campaign to reassert American primacy.
Israel, already engaged in shadow wars with Iran, would likely welcome such US involvement, seeing it as a decisive moment to dismantle the Islamic Republic's regional ambitions.
For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this could be the culmination of a decades-long security doctrine centered on preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power or a hegemon.
For Trump, Israel's support is not just strategic—it is deeply political. It energizes his evangelical base and signals to Washington's hawkish establishment that he is not just a deal-maker but a wartime president.
In many ways, this is a return to a form of Nixonian 'madman theory'—showing unpredictability to coerce adversaries into submission. But Trump takes it one step further: unpredictability is no longer a tactic but a brand.
From tariffs to trade deals, embassy relocations to drone strikes, Trump has shown that chaos is not a byproduct—it is the plan.
Once Iran is bombed and coerced into surrender—should that scenario come to pass—Trump will likely position the act as proof that America is back, that it no longer tolerates deadbeat allies, hostile regimes or trade cheats.
He will then pivot to Beijing, pressuring China to remove barriers to US exports, agree to more stringent intellectual property protections and halt its support for Iran and Russia. 'Look what happened to Tehran,' Trump might warn. 'Don't be next.'
In Southeast Asia, where countries are watching this dynamic closely, the message is equally stark. Malaysia, Indonesia, and Thailand—economies with strong trade linkages to both China and the US—will face renewed pressure to pick sides.
Trump's version of 'with us or against us' will come cloaked in tariffs, sanctions and security demands. Even countries that enjoy exemptions today—such as Malaysia's semiconductor sector—could find those favors withdrawn if they do not align with America's broader geopolitical stance.
Trump's strategic calculus rests on one core principle: raw power, not persuasion.
His demands for Iran's unconditional surrender are not driven by fear of a nuclear Iran—there is little concrete evidence Tehran is on the brink of weaponization but by a need to demonstrate overwhelming power. In other words, Iran is not the final goal—it is the opening move.
In this worldview, multilateralism is obsolete, diplomacy is for the weak, and war—so long as it is winnable—serves a purpose beyond the battlefield. It is the ultimate bargaining chip.
What the world must understand is this: Trump's warnings are not rhetorical flourishes. They are statements of intent. The drive to bomb Iran is neither about containment nor about peace. It is about leverage. It is about rebalancing global power by unbalancing the world.
And in this dangerous recalibration, Tehran is just the first domino.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, former head teaching fellow, Harvard University, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar
Luthfy Hamzah is senior research fellow , Strategic Pan Indo Pacific Arena , Kuala Lumpur