Almost every day, journalists and governments await the outbreak of an American war against Iran. Many have forgotten what the US demands from Tehran actually are — demands whose failure to be met is said to justify war. For years, the focus was on Iran’s nuclear program, until the joint twelve-day strike by Israel and the United States. Afterwards, the debate expanded to ballistic missiles and Iran’s networks in Iraq, Lebanon, and Yemen. More recently, after protests erupted in Iran, the US president insisted on striking the Iranian regime unless the killing of demonstrators ceased.
Clear distinctions between America’s allies and adversaries no longer exist. Trump’s America keeps a distance from all countries and makes demands of all of them, though the scale varies. Naturally, demands on China are heavier than those on Canada, Venezuela, or Mexico. Yet when Canada and Venezuela failed to respond as quickly as the president wanted, he threatened Canada with invasion and annexation, and warned of imposing 100 percent tariffs on Canadian imports. As for Venezuela, which did not comply swiftly, the United States abducted its president and his wife and brought them to New York for interrogation and trial on charges of drug production and trafficking and of serving Iranian, Cuban, and Bolivian interests hostile to Washington.
In the president’s view, the world falls into three categories. The first comprises weak states — or those he considers weak — liable to invasion if they do not submit. He praises Venezuela’s current administration for cooperating in handing over control of its oil resources. The second includes middle-power states such as European allies, India, Australia, Japan, and Brazil. The president is willing to negotiate quickly with them, but if they fail to comply — as in the case of Greenland with Denmark, distancing from Ukraine, or India’s refusal to stop importing Russian oil — he is ready to impose high tariffs on their exports to the United States. The third category is limited, essentially China and Russia — and Britain, though the British have recently diverged from Trump. While he also threatens China and Russia, in reality he has little choice but negotiation, given their vast mutual interests with the United States, which neither side can ignore, despite their ability to exert pressure or force concessions to reach eventual settlements.
What explains these new strategic policies, whose contours began to emerge during Trump’s first term?
Thomas Friedman, the prominent New York Times columnist, argues that the president is obsessed with himself and driven by self-glorification. But even if that were true, an American majority would not elect him twice simply because of narcissism. Deep changes are reshaping Western European and American societies. Many middle- and lower-income groups feel insecure about their present and future and blame immigrants from around the world. They also believe that large state bureaucracies erode their incomes through liberal policies.
Trump echoes these sentiments, portraying them as the result of global exploitation enabled by corrupt democratic governments. US debt has reached staggering levels, and Trump seeks to reclaim money from countries that benefited from American generosity, led by Europeans and NATO. Seeking to bring American technology back home, he also clashes with major US corporations that moved production abroad in search of cheaper labor and resources. He is betting on two strategies: exploiting the resources of countries dependent on the United States and intimidating powerful states with America’s overwhelming military strength.
The world is deeply interconnected. Rich and poor alike have grown accustomed to the free movement of goods, capital, and people — what they call globalization. Today, everyone is more or less surprised and searching for a way out. There are still no serious efforts to form counter-alliances, and many believe they can appease Trump through specific concessions. Meanwhile, he grows more determined in raids and exploitation, as no unified front has emerged against him so far.
Two factors must be considered: first, major and mid-sized countries whose economies depend on trade with the United States cannot afford confrontation, as they have no alternative to the American market. Second, America’s military power is unprecedented in history; smaller and mid-sized states fear it and comply, while major powers hesitate to take risks.
Ironically, Trump constantly proclaims two goals: “America First” and America’s readiness to impose peace on the world, even through war. The problem is that there are no clear limits to America’s priority, and war does not necessarily produce peace.
