The latest US foray into military action has a name: The Trump Doctrine
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - With his order for B-2 bombers to strike Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday, President Donald Trump swerved away from his usual reluctance to use military force, directly involving the U.S. in a foreign war and alarming many of his "America First" supporters.
Now, the thinking behind his decision has a name, according to Vice President JD Vance: the Trump Doctrine.
Vance laid out the elements in remarks on Tuesday: articulate a clear American interest, try to solve a problem with diplomacy and, if that fails, "use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict."
To some observers, however, the new doctrine sounds like an effort to offer a tidy framework to describe a foreign policy that often looks unpredictable and inconsistent.
"It's hard for me to relate seriously to something called the 'Trump Doctrine,'" said Middle East analyst Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"I don't think Trump has a doctrine. I think Trump has only held instincts."
Trump's decision to get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran came after Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei said Iran would not give up its ability to enrich uranium. Soon after the U.S. strikes, Trump announced a ceasefire, which has mostly held.
On Wednesday, Trump vowed again that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and said talks with Tehran would resume next week. Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
'President Trump and Vice President Vance are the perfect team because they share the same 'peace through strength' vision for U.S. foreign policy," said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in response to a request for comment.
Trump faces pressure to explain his decision to intervene in the Israel-Iran conflict. Vance, who previously embraced isolationism, has been one of the administration's main messengers on the issue.
Trump helped win over voters by arguing that the "stupid" U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had left the United States in a quagmire and that he would work to avoid foreign entanglements.
He has mostly stuck to the pledge, with some exceptions: the use of American force against Houthi rebels launching attacks from Yemen this year, and his orders to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019 and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
But the prospect of the United States getting dragged into an extended conflict with Iran angered many in the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, including prominent Trump supporters like strategist Steve Bannon and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson.
Opinion polling also reflects deep concern among Americans about what might come next.
Some 79% of Americans surveyed in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes."
Melanie Sisson, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Vance appears to be trying to satisfy Trump's right flank by "trying to figure out how to explain how and why the administration can undertake a military action without it being a prelude to war."
To some, Vance's Trump Doctrine rings true.
"Vance has provided an accurate summary of President Trump's approach over recent days to the conflict in the Middle East," said Clifford May, founder and president of Washington's Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.
"Most outside analysts, and certainly most historians, may think the term 'doctrine' is premature. But if President Trump builds on this successful use of U.S. force, it would be a tremendous doctrine for President Trump to boast," May added.
Still, whether the new framework sticks will likely depend on how the current conflict ends.
It is too soon to 'pronounce either that this was a brilliant success or that it was a massive strategic failure," said Rebecca Lissner, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"We need to see how the diplomacy plays out and where we actually land in terms of constraint, visibility and survival of the Iranian nuclear program."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
30 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Gulf allies believe Israel is out of control after ‘reckless' war
Israel's attack on Iran risks triggering a lasting rupture with its Middle Eastern allies, Gulf Arab officials have warned. Once seen as the region's chief guarantor against the Iranian nuclear threat, Israel is now increasingly viewed as its most destabilising force after entering conflict with Tehran, which one Arab diplomat characterised as 'unforgivably reckless'. Although some officials admitted that they hoped Israel had succeeded in destroying Iran's nuclear facilities, representatives of three Gulf states have expressed alarm about its growing military dominance and Benjamin Netanyahu's willingness to wield it. Speaking on condition of anonymity, one official said: 'He appears to be beyond restraint – in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and now Iran. 'Unchecked, uncontrollable power is no longer an asset for us. It is a problem.' Growing concern about Israel's 'destabilising' role threatens the legacy of the Abraham Accords, the series of agreements under which the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco and Sudan normalised relations with Israel. Hailed as a landmark moment for Israel's integration into the Arab world after decades of hostility, the accords were Donald Trump 's signature foreign policy achievement in his first term. US officials had hoped Saudi Arabia would eventually follow suit but expectations have dwindled since Israel's war in Gaza, which drew sharp denunciations from Riyadh. Gulf states were drawn to the accords partly because they enabled them to forge a united front against Iran. Tehran's nuclear ambitions, missile development and sponsorship of proxy militias were seen as the region's primary threat. The accords also facilitated intelligence sharing and military cooperation at a time when Washington seemed to be disengaging from the region. That Israel now risks replacing Iran as the chief source of instability is an irony. It reflects rising anxiety over what Gulf states, which have preferred to seek a diplomatic solution with Iran, increasingly see as Israel's boundless military ambition.
The Independent
34 minutes ago
- The Independent
Trump will look at giving Ukraine more Patriot missiles as he calls on Putin to end war
Donald Trump said he is considering sending more Patriot missile systems to Ukraine, as he renewed calls on Russian leader Vladimir Putin to end the war. The president added that he isn't ruling out a new defense assistance package, when he spoke to reporters at the Nato summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday. Trump, who has surrounded himself with isolationist-minded advisers who've publicly opposed continued support for Kyiv, responded, 'We'll see what happens' when asked whether the U.S. would contribute anything on top of the $8 billion pledged by NATO allies as part of the 32-member bloc's continued support for Ukraine's war effort. Click here for the latest updates on the war in Ukraine Speaking at a press conference on the heels of a closed-door sit-down with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, Mr. Trump said there has been 'a lot of spirit' in Ukraine's fight against the invasion Putin ordered in February 2022. Trump also appeared to shift blame for the continuation and escalation of the war to Putin, marking a dramatic reversal from how he characterized the situation during a contentious Oval Office meeting with Zelensky earlier this year. 'Vladimir Putin really has to end that war,' the president said. 'People are dying at levels that people haven't seen before for a long time.' He recounted to reporters how he'd rebuked Putin during a recent phone call after the Russian leader offered to mediate an end to hostilities between Israel and Iran, stressing he would rather he brought an end to the conflict in Ukraine. He later added that Putin has been 'more difficult' than Zelensky, with whom Trump has had a contentious relationship dating back to his first term, when a phone call with the Ukrainian leader launched a scandal that led to the first of his two impeachment trials in the Senate. Trump's relationship with Putin has long been far friendlier, but even that has appeared to sour in recent months as the Russian dictator has continued to pound civilian targets in Ukraine with drones and missiles, killing thousands and complicating efforts by Trump to cajole both sides to the negotiating table. In April, he became so irate over Putin's attacks on civilians that he took to Truth Social to exhort the Russian leader to halt the attacks and get to the negotiating table, writing: 'Vladimir, STOP! 5,000 soldiers a week are dying. Let's get the Peace Deal DONE!' Since then, he has floated the possibility of imposing harsh new sanctions on Moscow if Putin refuses to cooperate in the U.S.-led efforts to bring about a settlement in the three-year-old conflict. The president's changed view of the war and Putin's culpability also became evident when he had an emotional exchange with a reporter for the BBC's Ukrainian service, who asked whether the U.S. was prepared to sell more Patriot anti-air missiles to Ukraine. Last year, the Biden administration announced they would prioritize deliveries of Patriot interceptors to Ukraine on account of Russia's accelerated pace of aerial attacks against civilians and infrastructure, but Kyiv has had to expand their use of the missiles and has been running low on them. Trump asked the reporter if she was currently living in Ukraine, at which point she replied that she was based in Warsaw with her children while her husband has remained in Ukraine. The president responded: 'That's rough stuff.' He asked the journalist again to confirm that she was living outside of Ukraine and working as a reporter, replying 'good' when she answered in the affirmative. 'Let me just tell you, they [Ukraine] do want to have the anti-missile missiles, as they call them, the Patriots, and we're going to see if we can make some available,' he said. Trump added that such weapons were 'very hard to get' and 'very effective', while admitting that the U.S. had been prioritizing supplies for Israel amid that country's ongoing wars. 'They do want that more than any other thing, as you probably know,' he said before praising her 'very good question' and telling her to 'say hello' to her husband for him. Trump's apparent openness to sending more American aid to Ukraine comes as NATO's 32 member nations pledged to 'reaffirm' what they described as 'enduring sovereign commitments to provide support to Ukraine,' calling Ukrainian security efforts a contribution to NATO's own security. The alliance also pledged to include 'direct contributions to Ukraine defense' as part of efforts to have each country meet a threshold of spending five percent of gross domestic product on defense.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Why UK needs to pander to Trump but should not necessarily believe him
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Following the US attack on Iran, Donald Trump said its nuclear enrichment facilities had been 'completely and fully obliterated', setting back the tyrannical regime's plans by 'decades'. However, according to a leaked preliminary assessment by the Pentagon, the missile strikes only caused a delay of a few months. Amid the ensuing uproar over these very different takes, the US President attacked the media for reporting the classified document's findings, saying they were "scum" and "disgusting", while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio accused those behind the leak of being "professional stabbers". Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But, clearly, what matters is what has actually happened. If Iran still has the ability to quickly develop nuclear weapons, the world needs to be alive to that threat. With the situation still unclear, it would be far better to err on the side of caution. Keir Starmer speaks to US President Donald Trump at the Nato summit in The Hague (Picture: Kin Cheung/pool) | Getty Images Axis of Autocracies Where Trump deserves credit is that the US attack has demonstrated to Iran's leaders how vulnerable they are, and this may have a deterring effect on a regime, widely despised by its own people, which poses a very real threat to world peace. It is a member of what former Nato Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, has described as the 'Axis of Autocracies', along with Russia, China and North Korea. The combined threat these dictatorships pose is the reason why the world needs a much stronger Nato. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad And that means European leaders must sometimes swallow their pride and be rather sycophantic towards Trump, even as he continues to cast doubt on his commitment to the Nato treaty which states an attack on one will be treated as an attack on all. The UK and Europe have no choice but to spend more on defence – commensurate with the increased threats facing the world and also, again erring on the side of caution, in case Trump decides to withdraw from the alliance, formally or not.
