During the last week in Ohio Vance, he stated that the American attack on Iran's nuclear installations was the implementation of “Trump's doctrine”. According to the vice president, it consists of three points: first, “clearly define the American interest”; Secondly, “aggressively negotiate to achieve this interest”; Third, “if necessary, use overwhelming strength.”
Vance argued that in the case of Iran all three points were met: (1) Trump clearly claimed that Iran could not have atomic weapons; (2) Americans for 60 days conducted negotiations with Tehran on this matter; (3) And after 60 days they used “overwhelming strength” to make Iran not get an atomic weapon.
This “doctrine” has been used in the case of Iran, but very little indicates that it will become a model according to which the Americans will conduct their foreign policy. It is impossible to successfully use these three points in a different context: towards China, Russia or even Ukraine.
However, Vance's words show how the current administration thinks about international policy. And this is not a vision that is optimistic. What's more, he heralds many a serious US conflict with other powers.
A doctrine that is not a doctrine
Theoretically, what Vance presented as Trump's doctrine sounds coherent. However, the problem arises when to look at how to apply it in practice.
Her first point is “clearly defining the American interest”. Trump has the slightest problem with this. In the case of Iran, he clearly said that Tehran could not have atomic weapons. In the case of war in Ukraine, he clearly repeats that his goal is to terminate the conflict as soon as possible. When Trump talks about China, the goal is also clear: reduce the commercial deficit and addiction to Chinese production. Trump can be chaotic at the level of methods used, but he knows perfectly well what he wants to achieve.
Continued article under video material
Secondly, the doctrine assumes “aggressive negotiations to achieve the goal.” Trump administration, of course, negotiates a lot, also with the largest rivals, and this is a change in a plus in relation to Biden administration. Most often, however, these negotiations look like Trump cannot achieve the assumed goal.
For example, the designation of a 60-day time horizon for negotiations with Iran was in fact an ultimatum set to the Ayatollah regime, and not a manifestation of diplomacy conducted in good faith. Talks with Russia and Ukraine are also difficult to call “aggressive diplomacy”, because after almost half a year Trump's administration is more resigned and disappointed than willing to take strong diplomatic initiatives. In the case of commercial negotiations, Trump throws from wall to wall: from “aggressive diplomacy” to mitigation of tensions, even if in return nothing really gets.
This way of conducting talks means that in none of these three issues Trump has achieved success.
Thirdly, Trump's “doctrine” assumes the use of “overwhelming strength if necessary.” Americans could afford to use Iran, because they were definitely stronger and allowed this to be favorable for Israel in the region. However, it is hard to imagine that they take similar effects elsewhere in the world.
Well, because, for example, Trump is ready to use “overwhelming force” towards Russia and Ukraine? This is very doubtful. He regularly announces that he wants to “end” the war as soon as possible, and therefore he involved the entire White House and the Department of State in peaceful talks. But these conversations do not bring the desired effect, and Trump only expresses disappointment and frustration. It turns out that he has a more limited field of maneuver and the possibility of pressure on Russia than he thought.
It is similar in politics towards China. Is Trump ready to use “overwhelming strength” to force Chinese better commercial conditions? Considering that so far (both in the first term and now) he was content with agreements that did not solve the essence of the problem, it is – again – very doubtful. Anyway, what would “overwhelming strength” look like towards Beijing? 145 % customs that harm the Americans themselves than the Chinese? It is difficult to say if Trump himself knows.
Considering the above three problems and the circumstances of Vance, it seems that “doctrine” is rather a rationalization of an impact on Iran, and not a new foundation of American foreign policy.
What does Trump “doctrine” mean for the world?
However, the very fact that Vance and other representatives of the American administration think in this way. Three points that the US Vice President presented in Ohio are an expression of America's aspiration to continue to dictate conditions to other countries. They are a logical consequence of Trump's calls to “make America again great”, because, contrary to the popular opinion, Trump is absolutely not an isolationist, but he wants America to be the unquestioned world hegemon again. Finally, they are a very clear statement that in international policy the above all is strength, and the stronger – that is, the Americans – they dictate the conditions.
It is not difficult to notice that with three points Vance Vladimir Putin could easily explain, for example, the invasion of Ukraine. The Russian president defined the clear goal of his country, which is to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO. Then, in December 2021, he issued an ultimatum and for two months talked with the West about security architecture in Europe. However, when he decided that he would achieve nothing through negotiations, he used “overwhelming strength” to achieve his goal.
The fact that the greatest powers, also the United States, think about international policy in this way is not a surprise. Vance is an American nationalist, not a liberal like Obama or Biden. He articulates American interests much more brutally than his democratic predecessors did. With a candle, however, look for liberals in America who would not agree with its three points and who would like to give the palm of a military, economic and technological priority in the world China, Russia or any other state.
Therefore, even if the circumstances prevent the Trump's administration from consistently using the new “doctrine”, the way of thinking behind it will continue to dominate in Washington. Even if America is no longer as powerful as even two decades ago, Vance's words indicate that she will try to convince the rest of the world that she can still do what the strongest do – that is, dictates to other countries conditions.
And this heralds many a serious US conflict with other powers. The powers that receive an encouragement on the tray to think about their interests exactly as he put it in Ohio Vance.
I’m Ashley Davis as an editor, I’m committed to upholding the highest standards of integrity and accuracy in every piece we publish. My work is driven by curiosity, a passion for truth, and a belief that journalism plays a crucial role in shaping public discourse. I strive to tell stories that not only inform but also inspire action and conversation.
