The latest US foray into military action has a name: The Trump Doctrine
FILE PHOTO: U.S. President Donald Trump delivers an address to the nation accompanied by U.S. Vice President JD Vance, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025, following U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. REUTERS/Carlos Barria/Pool/File Photo
The latest US foray into military action has a name: The Trump Doctrine
WASHINGTON - 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.
MAGA WORRIES
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." REUTERS
Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Times
an hour ago
- Business Times
Japan auto trade ‘unfair', could buy more US oil, Trump tells Fox News
JAPAN engages in 'unfair' automobile trade with the United States and should increase its imports of US energy resources and other goods to help reduce the US trade deficit, President Donald Trump said in an interview broadcast on Sunday. Tokyo is scrambling to find ways to get Washington to exempt Japan's automakers from 25 per cent automobile industry-specific tariffs, which are hurting the country's manufacturing sector. Japan also faces a 24 per cent so-called reciprocal tariff rate starting on July 9 unless it can negotiate a deal. 'They won't take our cars, and yet we take millions and millions of their cars into the United States. It's not fair, and I explained that to Japan, and they understand it,' Trump said in an interview on Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures with Maria Bartiromo. 'And we have a big deficit with Japan, and they understand that too. Now we have oil. They could take a lot of oil, they could take a lot of other things.' The automobile sector accounted for about 28 per cent of the total 21 trillion yen (S$185 billion) worth of goods Japan exported to the US last year. REUTERS
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Can donors fill the major budget holes that colleges face under Trump?
Harvard University saw a surge in donations in the spring after its president pushed back against the Trump administration PHOTO: SOPHIE PARK/NYTIMES WASHINGTON - The T.H. Chan School of Public Health at Harvard University has not been disguising its plight. 'With Harvard's federal funding frozen, we are relying on philanthropy to power our research and support our educational programs,' the school's donation website says. 'Your ongoing engagement is vital to keeping our mission on track.' The Trump administration's decision to block billions of dollars in research money to certain colleges is forcing administrators and their fundraising teams to scrounge for cash. As schools across the country contemplate layoffs, lab shutdowns and other drastic steps, they are weighing how much the gaps can be plugged by private philanthropy – and how pointedly political their pleas for donations ought to be. A handful are wagering that the financial rewards of trying to leverage donors' concerns about the federal cuts will outweigh the risk of antagonising the White House. In an April 30 note to alumni, Brown University President Christina H. Paxson said about three dozen of its grants and contracts had been cancelled, and that the government had stopped funding many research grants. She said news reports stated that the Trump administration had threatened an additional US$510 million (S$650.5 million) in grants and contracts to the university. The moves, she wrote, represented 'a significant threat to Brown's financial sustainability'. She urged alumni to lobby lawmakers about the issue and added links for making donations to the university, including to support research whose federal funding was cancelled or delayed. (Brown said data was not yet available for release about whether giving had increased as a result.) Many other institutions have opted for more caution. Mr Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education and a former leader of Occidental College, suggested that some schools may be worried about turning off right-leaning donors who may agree with President Donald Trump's opinion that academia has tilted too far to the left. Some schools would like to emphasise the political attacks in their fundraising appeals, Mitchell said, 'but their donor base is at least purple, if not red, and it's tough for them to make a really anti-Trump statement and keep their donor base.' A White House spokesperson, Mr Harrison Fields, said colleges and universities should address their financial problems by tightening their belts. 'If these higher education institutions were serious about lowering costs,' he said in an emailed statement, 'they would cut the bloated salaries of their faculty and stop wasting money on useless programs that do little to advance education.' Universities have been grappling for months with sudden losses of research funding that cumulatively threaten thousands of jobs and an array of carefully planned projects. Relationships with donors can be fickle and fleeting, and many of the wealthiest donors have complex financial pictures with overlapping interests. And while universities collectively pull in billions of dollars in gifts each year, some of their causes are easier sells than others. Student financial aid, for instance, is a reliable attraction for donors. Scientific research, on the other hand, is a notoriously tricky target in fundraising efforts, though some of the biggest gifts are tied to the sciences. Even if appeals to bolster threatened research could raise millions of dollars, it might not be enough to replace the hundreds of millions or even billions that colleges and universities stand to lose in the federal cuts. Harvard, for example, said that in its 2024 fiscal year, it received about US$528 million in current-use gifts. In that same period, the university received about US$687 million from the federal government for research. Harvard received a surge in donations this spring after its president wrote a scathing letter to the Trump administration, according to the university's student newspaper, The Crimson. The university did not provide data on donations for this article. Even so, private fundraising by colleges and universities seems unlikely to be enough to fill the void. 'I think we can be sure that the amount of money would not come close to replacing what has been suspended,' said Mr Lee C. Bollinger, who has served as president of Columbia University and the University of Michigan. 'You're not going to make that up with donations.' One task for college leaders is to discern how much they should emphasise politics in their appeals, whether in public solicitations for money or private meetings with their biggest givers. Referring to the Trump administration's funding cuts, Mr Bollinger said, 'I think universities, broadly speaking, have been very clear in saying this is an overreach and an assault and intrudes into areas of academic decision-making and is part of a broader effort to break down the norms.' Still, he added, 'I don't need to go in and talk to a donor and make the case that we're up against authoritarianism and we really need your help. I think it can be much more delicately handled than that.' One looming question for higher education is whether this burst of government hostility, however long it lasts, will force a wholesale rethinking of how to fund universities. Mr Bollinger has found himself wondering whether institutions should routinely designate a portion of the contributions they take in as 'a fund to support freedom of the university when it's under assault'. Such a strategy, he conceded, would have limits. 'Over time, you could build up a substantial reserve – a rainy-day fund, but for these kinds of assaults,' he said. 'But it would only get you through a period of time.' Trump administration officials, among others, have urged universities with multibillion-dollar endowments to tap them to replace lost federal money. But there are often restrictions on how a university may use its endowment money. In many instances, donors have attached conditions to their contributions, specifying that the money go toward a specific discipline or department. And now a Republican-backed bill moving through Congress may increase the taxes that universities pay on their endowments. NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
After war with Israel and US, Iran rests on a knife edge
A man holding portraits of Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (right) and the late supreme leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini during the funeral procession of military commanders and scientists killed during Israeli strikes, at Enqelab Square in Tehran on June 28. PHOTO: AFP DUBAI, United Arab Emirates – Roxana Saberi felt like she was back behind bars in Tehran, Iran. As she watched Israel's bombing of Evin prison, the notorious detention facility at the core of Iran's political repression, she shuddered at memories of solitary confinement, relentless interrogation, fabricated espionage charges and a sham trial during her 100-day incarceration in 2009. Like many Iranians in the diaspora and at home, Ms Saberi wavered, torn between her dreams of a government collapse that would free the country's immense potential and her concern for family and friends as the civilian death toll mounted. Longings for liberation and for a ceasefire vied with each other. 'For a moment, I imagined seeing Iran again in my lifetime,' said Ms Saberi, 48, a dual Iranian and American citizen and author who has taken a break from her journalistic career. 'I also thought how ridiculous it was that the Islamic Republic wasted decades accusing thousands of women's rights advocates, dissidents and others of being spies, when they couldn't catch the real spies.' Those spies, mainly from Israel's Mossad foreign intelligence service, penetrated Iran's highest political and military echelons. The question now is what a shaken Islamic Republic in dire economic straits will do with what Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian, a moderate, has called 'a golden opportunity for change'. That moment is also one of extreme, even existential, risk brought on by the 12-day Israeli-Iranian war that the United States briefly joined. The military campaign flirted with dislodging the clerical autocracy that has made uranium enrichment the symbol of Iran's national pride, but stopped short of killing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's 86-year-old supreme leader, even though Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel had said that the ayatollah's death would 'end the conflict'. The 46-year-old Islamic Republic limps on. It does so despite the collapse of its 'axis of resistance' that was formed through the funding, at vast expense, of anti-Western proxies from Lebanon to Yemen; despite the devastating bombing of its equally exorbitant nuclear facilities that never produced a bomb and scarcely lit a lightbulb; and despite the humiliation of surrendering the skies above Iran to its enemies. Yet Mr Khamenei, as the guardian of the theocratic anti-Western revolution that triumphed in 1979, sees himself as the victor. 'The Islamic Republic won,' he said in a video broadcast on June 26 from a secret location, laying to rest rumours of his demise. His is a survival game dosed with prudence that now faces the greatest test of his 36 years in power. 'To understand Iran and Khamenei and the people around him is to understand that the Islamic Republic's survival is always a victory,' said Mr Sanam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa programme at Chatham House, a London think tank. Revolution at a crossroads Already, tensions over how to address the crisis brought on by the war are evident. Mr Pezeshkian appears to favour a liberalising makeover, repairing relations with the West through a possible nuclear deal. He has spoken in recent days of 'an opportunity to change our views on governance'. It was not clear what he meant, but many in Iran favour strengthening elected institutions and making the supreme leader more of a figurehead than the ultimate font of authority. They seek an Islamic Republic that is more of a republic, where women are empowered and a younger generation no longer feels oppressed by a gerontocratic theological system. Mr Khamenei insisted that the Israeli and American attack on nuclear facilities had failed 'to achieve anything significant'. But Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi seemed to question that judgment, saying on June 26 that the country's nuclear facilities had sustained 'significant and serious damage'. Hardliners see any disunity as a danger signal. They believe concessions presage collapse. The fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, 69 years after its formation, and the 'colour revolutions' that brought Western democracy to post-Soviet states, deeply affected Mr Khamenei and his entourage. They are suspicious of any nuclear deal, and adamant that Iran must retain the right to enrich uranium on its soil, which Israel and the United States have said is unacceptable. They are also strongly represented in the country's single most powerful institution, the Revolutionary Guard. The Guard numbers 150,000 to 190,000 members, Mr Vakil said. With control over vast swaths of the economy, they have a deep vested interest in the government's survival. They are the kind of large institutional buffer that President Bashar Assad in Syria lacked before his downfall last year. Already, as it did in 2009 when a large-scale uprising threatened the toppling of the Islamic Republic, Iran has embarked on a crackdown involving hundreds of arrests, at least three executions, and the deployment of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia in Kurdish and other restive areas. Iranians have seen this movie before. Some wonder what the war was for if they are to face another bludgeoning. 'The people want to know who is to blame for multiple defeats, but there is no leader to take on the regime,' said Mr Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a prominent political scientist in the United Arab Emirates. 'A weak Islamic Republic could hang on four or five years.' This weakness appears deep. The 'victory' claimed by Mr Khamenei cannot disguise the fact that Iran is now a nation with near zero deterrence. 'I would imagine that deep in his bunker, Khamenei's priority must be how to rebuild a deterrence that was based on the nuclear program, the missile program and armed proxies, all now in shreds,' said Mr Jeffrey Feltman, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and, as United Nations undersecretary-general for political affairs in 2012, one of the few Americans to have met the supreme leader. 'Khamenei was obsessed with the mendacity and belligerence of the United States,' Feltman recalled. 'His eyes were benevolent, but his words, expressed in a quiet, dull monotone, were anything but benevolent.' Paranoia, institutionalised Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Mr Khamenei's predecessor, promised freedom when he came to power in the 1979 revolution that threw out a shah seen as a pawn of the secular and decadent West. It was not to be. Tensions soon erupted between those who had fought for democracy and those for whom theocratic rule was more important. The Islamic Republic's first president, Abolhassan Banisadr, was impeached and ousted after a little more than a year in office, for challenging the rule of the clerics. He fled to France. Thousands were executed as the government consolidated its power. War engulfed the revolutionary country in 1980, when Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi leader, ordered an invasion. The fighting would go on for eight years, leaving an estimated 500,000 people dead, most of them on the Iranian side, before Mr Khomeini drank from 'the poison chalice,' as he put it, and accepted an end to the war. The generation that fought that war, now largely forgotten in the West, forms much of the political and military elite in Iran today. They came away from the war convinced of American perfidy in light of US military support for Iraq, persuaded of Iranian resilience and viscerally dedicated to the revolution for which they had seen so many fall. 'The war, in many cases, embedded a paranoid worldview, a sense of victimization that has led the elite, and particularly Khamenei, to be unaware of how the world is evolving around them,' Mr Vakil said. All of this has shaped the nazam, or system. It is now thoroughly institutionalised. Change has proved difficult and conflict has festered. In the more than four decades since the revolution, the century-long Iranian quest for some workable compromise between clericalism and secularism, one that denies neither the country's profound Islamic faith nor its broad attraction to liberal values, has endured. At times, the tension has flared into violent confrontation, as when more than 2 million people took to the streets in 2009 to protest what they saw as a stolen election that returned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. The vote had been preceded by weeks of vigorous televised presidential debates, watched by tens of millions of people, and the rapid rise of Mir-Hossein Moussavi's liberalising Green Movement. All that evaporated as the Revolutionary Guard and Basij militia clubbed protesters into submission over the days after the vote. Seldom, if ever, had the two faces of the Islamic Republic been so evident, one vibrant and freedom-seeking, the other harsh and closed, succeeding each other at hallucinogenic speed. More recently, in 2022, a wave of protests erupted after a young woman, Mahsa Amini, died in the custody of Iran's morality police soon after her arrest for failing to cover her hair with a hijab. The movement reflected deep exasperation at the notion that aging clerics should tell women how to dress, and it led to some change. Many more women now go without hijabs; reprimands have become rarer and milder. The government's ability to suppress challenges, through repression and adaptation, reflects its strong survival instincts, and complicates assessments of its possible durability even as a clear majority of Iranians oppose it. So, too, does popular weariness after a century of upheavals that have left Iranians with little taste for further turmoil and bloodshed. 'The people of Iran are fed up with being pariahs, and some were more saddened by the ceasefire than the war itself,' said Dherar Belhoul al-Falasi, a former member of the UAE's Federal National Council who now heads a consultancy focused on risk management. 'But we here in the Gulf are status quo powers that favour stability,' he added. A toppling of the Islamic Republic would likely have little support among Persian Gulf states, which include Saudi Arabia, not out of any love for Mr Khamenei, but out a desire to remain havens of peace and prosperity. 'For now, I don't see any forces gelling to go up against the regime,' Mr Feltman said. 'But Israel will strike again if it sees any redevelopment of Iran's nuclear or ballistic programs.' A tug that endures Ms Saberi's hopes rose and fell during the recent fighting as she sat in her parents' home in North Dakota. Against her better instincts, she found herself digging out her Iranian passport as the 12 days passed, and considering renewing it. She has not visited Iran in the 16 years since her release, knowing that return, as she put it, 'would be a one-way ticket'. But the tug of her second home, Iran, where she lived for six years, endures. 'Iran's in our heart, it's in our blood, there is nowhere in the world like it, and I know so many Iranians in the diaspora who would go back and contribute if the regime falls,' she said. 'My dad, in his 80s, spends his time translating Persian poetry.' NYTIMES Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
