If Trump has all the cards, why is the US in such a strategic quagmire?
Just four months ago, US President Donald Trump was
lecturing a surprised Volodymyr Zelensky on how the Ukrainian leader was 'not winning' because he did not
'have the cards' . As commander-in-chief of a superpower, Trump unabashedly brandished his geopolitical capital – apparently more interested in negotiating agreements with traditional US rivals such as
Russia and
Iran to bolster his 'art of the deal' credentials.
Today, the strategic picture looks dramatically different. Following the spectacular success of
Operation Spider's Web , which saw Ukrainian forces launching devastating drone attacks from within the heart of Russia, Kyiv seized the strategic initiative against the Kremlin.
Trump, meanwhile, has struggled to translate his geopolitical capital into concrete gains. Despite his promise to swiftly finalise new deals with Russia and Iran, and repeatedly promising a new era of peace to his 'Make America Great Again' (Maga) base, the situation has escalated in traditional theatres of conflict.
Having cards is one thing. Playing them skilfully is another. Not unlike his
trade policy track record , Trump has gradually found himself in new strategic quagmires, which could ultimately strengthen its chief rivals, namely Russia and China.
It's impossible to understand the direction of American politics over the past decade, and the meteoric rise of Trump, without taking into account the overwhelming public dissatisfaction with the ruling elite.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Asia Times
an hour ago
- Asia Times
Bunker busters: what Israel needs and Trump must decide
As Israel escalates its confrontation with Iran, Donald Trump faces a defining foreign policy test. The choice before him is not between diplomacy and war. Diplomacy has largely been exhausted; war, in some form, is already underway. The real question is more consequential and more concrete: should the United States supply Israel with its most formidable non-nuclear weapon—the 30,000-pound bunker buster? These Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) are designed for a singular purpose: to destroy deeply fortified targets, such as Iran's hardened nuclear facilities. Fordow, Iran's mountain-buried enrichment facility, was built to survive conventional airstrikes. Only the MOP can breach it. For years, US policy rested on a mix of sanctions and diplomacy, backed by the unspoken threat of these weapons. That deterrent is now being tested. Israel, having demonstrated its military capabilities in Gaza and against Hezbollah, is now striking Iranian nuclear scientists and sites and senior military commanders. There is growing confidence in Jerusalem that it can push further, potentially taking out Iran's political leadership. Trump himself recently claimed to have vetoed an Israeli request to target Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. From Israel's perspective, Iran is advancing too close to nuclear breakout, and the margin for delay is vanishing. Yet Israel still lacks the means to destroy Iran's most hardened assets. Only the US can fill that gap—and must now decide whether to do so. The strategic case for such collaboration is clear. If the US wishes to avoid a protracted regional war, it must consider helping Israel strike preemptively—precisely and decisively—before Iran can entrench itself behind proxies or lash out at other US allies. Whether through direct transfers of MOPs or joint US–Israeli operations, Washington's willingness to act could send an unmistakable message: the free world is willing to act to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear-armed power. Trump's instincts may align with this moment. No modern US president has embraced Israel's security priorities more overtly. From relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem to recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, Trump has built deep credibility with Israeli leadership. That credibility now grants him a narrow but meaningful opportunity to lead a coalition not of occupation but deterrence. This confrontation, however, is not solely Trump's to own. Netanyahu has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to bring the US into alignment with Israel's regional posture. In Gaza, the Biden administration maintained rhetorical distance while continuing to supply weapons. The current dilemma is a logical extension: will passive support become active cooperation? There is also a psychological layer to this moment. The memory of President Obama's unenforced 'red line' in Syria continues to haunt US credibility. When America declined to act after Assad's use of chemical weapons, adversaries took note. Iran, Russia and North Korea learned a critical lesson: US threats could prove hollow. That precedent now shapes this moment. Will the next move be guided by strength, by strategy, or by ego—or, as history often shows, a combustible mix of all three? Diplomacy remains relevant, but it is increasingly unclear whether it can contain Tehran's ambitions. The US is left debating whether treaties can hold Iran in check or if MOPs are the only remaining lever. One uncomfortable truth looms: the trajectory and intensity of this conflict—and perhaps the future of nuclear non-proliferation in the Middle East—will depend largely on whether Washington chooses to act. Both allies and adversaries are watching and adjusting their calculations accordingly. Critics will warn of escalation. Transferring MOPs or employing them directly risks igniting open war, destabilizing oil markets and fueling anti-American sentiment. Yet these risks are not new. They have existed since Iran began inching toward the nuclear threshold. What is untenable is the illusion that inaction preserves peace. The current path is one of slow, steady escalation with no clear off-ramp. By enabling Israel to target Iran's nuclear infrastructure with surgical precision, the US may not be choosing the most aggressive course, but the least dangerous one. The only thing more dangerous than using the bunker buster now may be failing to use it when the time calls for it. This is not about boots on the ground. It's about recognizing a geopolitical moment that demands clarity, not caution. Iran has built its nuclear program under mountains for a reason. The question now is whether the United States is prepared (and believes it is right) to help Israel reach beneath them. The answer may be as consequential as any the US has made in the nuclear age. Kurt Davis Jr is a Millennium Fellow at the Atlantic Council and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations. He is also an advisor to private, public and state-owned companies and their boards as well as creditors across the globe on a range of transactions, including debt and equity financings, M&A and special situations (including financial restructurings). He can be reached at .
South China Morning Post
an hour ago
- South China Morning Post
Prabowo's visit to Russia underscores Indonesia's non-aligned foreign policy
Indonesian President Prabowo Subianto 's visit to Russia this week is seen as a pragmatic step towards advancing ties between the two Brics members while maintaining Jakarta's non-aligned foreign policy. Officially part of the 75th anniversary of Indonesia Russia diplomatic ties, Prabowo's three-day visit will include a keynote address by him at the St Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF) on Friday, following an invitation by his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin Indonesia's foreign ministry said both countries would be holding discussions on transport, shipbuilding, technology and regional cooperation. Prabowo has declined an invitation to attend this week's G7 summit in Canada, citing prior commitments in Singapore and Russia. Although Indonesia is not a G7 member, Prabowo has been invited as a guest of the host government. His schedule reflects Jakarta's strategic calculus rather than a diplomatic snub at Ottawa, according to analysts. 'Prabowo believes there is more to gain from going to Moscow than to Canada,' said Yohanes Sulaiman, an associate professor of international relations at General Achmad Yani University. He was less inclined to want to be involved in the G7 summit, given that its agenda was dominated by tensions over Israel's attack on Iran, Yohanes added.
South China Morning Post
2 hours ago
- South China Morning Post
By air, land and sea, nations race to evacuate citizens from Israel and Iran
Governments around the world are evacuating thousands of their nationals caught up in the rapidly spiralling Israel-Iran conflict, organising buses and planes and in some cases assisting people crossing borders on foot. Advertisement Foreigners have rushed to leave both countries after Israel launched an unprecedented bombing campaign last Friday targeting Iran's nuclear and military facilities, sparking retaliation from Tehran. The evacuations gained new urgency as US President Donald Trump announced on Thursday he will decide within two weeks whether the US military will get directly involved in the conflict. Trump has been weighing whether to attack Iran by striking its well-defended Fordo uranium enrichment facility, which is buried under a mountain and widely considered to be out of reach of all but America's 'bunker-buster' bombs. With Israel's air space closed and the two countries exchanging heavy missile fire, many people are being evacuated via neighbouring countries. Advertisement European countries have already repatriated hundreds of their citizens from Israel.
