logo
How Trump is using the 'Madman Theory' to try to change the world

How Trump is using the 'Madman Theory' to try to change the world

BBC Newsa day ago
Asked last month whether he was planning to join Israel in attacking Iran, US President Donald Trump said "I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I'm going to do".He let the world believe he had agreed a two-week pause to allow Iran to resume negotiations. And then he bombed anyway.A pattern is emerging: The most predictable thing about Trump is his unpredictability. He changes his mind. He contradicts himself. He is inconsistent."[Trump] has put together a highly centralised policy-making operation, arguably the most centralised, at least in the area of foreign policy, since Richard Nixon," says Peter Trubowitz, professor of international relations at the London School of Economics. "And that makes policy decisions more dependent on Trump's character, his preferences, his temperament."
Trump has put this to political use; he has made his own unpredictability a key strategic and political asset. He has elevated unpredictability to the status of a doctrine. And now the personality trait he brought to the White House is driving foreign and security policy. It is changing the shape of the world.Political scientists call this the Madman Theory, in which a world leader seeks to persuade his adversary that he is temperamentally capable of anything, to extract concessions. Used successfully it can be a form of coercion and Trump believes it is paying dividends, getting the US's allies where he wants them. But is it an approach that can work against enemies? And could its flaw be that rather than being a sleight of hand designed to fool adversaries, it is in fact based on well established and clearly documented character traits, with the effect that his behaviour becomes easier to predict?
Attacks, insults and embraces
Trump began his second presidency by embracing Russian President Vladimir Putin and attacking America's allies. He insulted Canada by saying it should become the 51st state of the US. He said he was prepared to consider using military force to annex Greenland, an autonomous territory of America's ally Denmark. And he said the US should retake ownership and control of the Panama Canal.Article 5 of the Nato charter commits each member to come to the defence of all others. Trump threw America's commitment to that into doubt. "I think Article 5 is on life support" declared Ben Wallace, Britain's former defence secretary. Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve said: "For now the trans-Atlantic alliance is over."A series of leaked text messages revealed the culture of contempt in Trump's White House for European allies. "I fully share your loathing of European freeloaders," US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth told his colleagues, adding "PATHETIC".
In Munich earlier this year, Trump's Vice-President JD Vance said the US would no longer be the guarantor of European security.That appeared to turn the page on 80 years of trans-Atlantic solidarity. "What Trump has done is raise serious doubts and questions about the credibility of America's international commitments," says Prof Trubowitz."Whatever understanding those countries [in Europe] have with the United States, on security, on economic or other matters, they're now subject to negotiation at a moment's notice."My sense is that most people in Trump's orbit think that unpredictability is a good thing, because it allows Donald Trump to leverage America's clout for maximum gain… "This is one of of his takeaways from negotiating in the world of real estate."Trump's approach paid dividends. Only four months ago, Sir Keir Starmer told the House of Commons that Britain would increase defence and security spending from 2.3% of GDP to 2.5%. Last month, at a Nato summit, that had increased to 5%, a huge increase, now matched by every other member of the Alliance.
The predictability of unpredictability
Trump is not the first American president to deploy an Unpredictability Doctrine. In 1968, when US President Richard Nixon was trying to end the war in Vietnam, he found the North Vietnamese enemy intractable."At one point Nixon said to his National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger, 'you ought to tell the North Vietnamese negotiators that Nixon's crazy and you don't know what he's going to do, so you better come to an agreement before things get really crazy'," says Michael Desch, professor of international relations at Notre Dame University. "That's the madman theory."
Julie Norman, professor of politics at University College London, agrees that there is now an Unpredictability Doctrine. "It's very hard to know what's coming from day to day," she argues. "And that has always been Trump's approach."Trump successfully harnessed his reputation for volatility to change the trans-Atlantic defence relationship. And apparently to keep Trump on side, some European leaders have flattered and fawned. Last month's Nato summit in The Hague was an exercise in obsequious courtship. Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte had earlier sent President Trump (or "Dear Donald") a text message, which Trump leaked. "Congratulations and thank you for your decisive action in Iran, it was truly extraordinary," he wrote. On the forthcoming announcement that all Nato members had agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP, he continued: "You will achieve something NO president in decades could get done."
Anthony Scaramucci, who previously served as Trump's communications director in his first term, said: "Mr Rutte, he's trying to embarrass you, sir. He's literally sitting on Air Force One laughing at you."And this may prove to be the weakness at the heart of Trump's Unpredictability Doctrine: their actions may be based on the idea that Trump craves adulation. Or that he seeks short-term wins, favouring them over long and complicated processes.If that is the case and their assumption is correct, then it limits Trump's ability to perform sleights of hand to fool adversaries - rather, he has well established and clearly documented character traits that they have become aware of.
The adversaries impervious to charm and threats
Then there is the question of whether an Unpredictability Doctrine or the Madman Theory can work on adversaries.Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, an ally who was given a dressing down by Trump and Vance in the Oval Office, later agreed to grant the US lucrative rights to exploit Ukrainian mineral resources. Vladimir Putin, on the other hand, apparently remains impervious to Trump's charms and threats alike. On Thursday, following a telephone call, Trump said he was "disappointed" that Putin was not ready to end the war against Ukraine.
And Iran? Trump promised his base that he would end American involvement in Middle Eastern "forever wars". His decision to strike Iran's nuclear facilities was perhaps the most unpredictable policy choice of his second term so far. The question is whether it will have the desired effect.The former British Foreign Secretary, William Hague, has argued that it will do precisely the opposite: it will make Iran more, not less likely, to seek to acquire nuclear weapons.Prof Desch agrees. "I think it's now highly likely that Iran will make the decision to pursue a nuclear weapon," he says. "So I wouldn't be surprised if they lie low and do everything they can to complete the full fuel cycle and conduct a [nuclear] test."I think the lesson of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi is not lost on other dictators facing the US and potential regime change... "So the Iranians will desperately feel the need for the ultimate deterrent and they'll look at Saddam and Gaddafi as the negative examples and Kim Jong Un of North Korea as the positive example."
One of the likely scenarios is the consolidation of the Islamic Republic, according to Mohsen Milani, a professor of politics at the University of South Florida and author of Iran's Rise and Rivalry with the US in the Middle East. "In 1980, when Saddam Hussein attacked Iran his aim was the collapse of the Islamic Republic," he says. "The exact opposite happened. "That was the Israeli and American calculation too... That if we get rid of the top guys, Iran is going to surrender quickly or the whole system is going to collapse."
A loss of trust in negotiations?
Looking ahead, unpredictability may not work on foes, but it is unclear whether the recent shifts it has yielded among allies can be sustained.Whilst possible, this is a process built largely on impulse. And there may be a worry that the US could be seen as an unreliable broker."People won't want to do business with the US if they don't trust the US in negotiations, if they're not sure the US will stand by them in defence and security issues," argues Prof Norman. "So the isolation that many in the MAGA world seek is, I think, going to backfire."German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for one has said Europe now needs to become operationally independent of the US."The importance of the chancellor's comment is that it's a recognition that US strategic priorities are changing," says Prof Trubowitz. "They're not going to snap back to the way they were before Trump took office. "So yes, Europe is going to have to get more operationally independent."
This would require European nations to develop a much bigger European defence industry, to acquire kit and capabilities that currently only the US has, argues Prof Desch. For example, the Europeans have some sophisticated global intelligence capability, he says, but a lot of it is provided by the US."Europe, if it had to go it alone, would also require a significant increase in its independent armaments production capability," he continues. "Manpower would also be an issue. Western Europe would have to look to Poland to see the level of manpower they would need."All of which will take years to build up.
So, have the Europeans really been spooked by Trump's unpredictability, into making the most dramatic change to the security architecture of the western world since the end of the Cold War?"It has contributed," says Prof Trubowitz. "But more fundamentally, Trump has uncorked something… Politics in the United States has changed. Priorities have changed. To the MAGA coalition, China is a bigger problem than Russia. That's maybe not true for the Europeans."And according to Prof Milani, Trump is trying to consolidate American power in the global order."It's very unlikely that he's going to change the order that was established after World War Two. He wants to consolidate America's position in that order because China is challenging America's position in that order."But this all means that the defence and security imperatives faced by the US and Europe are diverging.The European allies may be satisfied that through flattery and real policy shifts, they have kept Trump broadly onside; he did, after all, reaffirm his commitment to Article 5 at the most recent Nato summit. But the unpredictability means this cannot be guaranteed - and they have seemed to accept that they can no longer complacently rely on the US to honour its historic commitment to their defence.And in that sense, even if the unpredictability doctrine comes from a combination of conscious choice and Trump's very real character traits, it is working, on some at least.Top image credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting
The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The Guardian

time43 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

The other winner in New York's mayoral contest: ranked-choice voting

The polls did not look good for New York progressives this winter when the Working Families party began making its endorsements for city elections. An early February poll from Emerson College showed Andrew Cuomo with a 23-point lead in a hypothetical Democratic primary matchup. None of the four leading progressives even approached double-digit support – including the then unknown assemblyman Zohran Mamdani. He polled at 1%. In the days before ranked-choice voting, the Working Families party's endorsement process might have looked quite different. Like-minded candidates would have drawn sharp distinctions between each other. Party officials might have looked to nudge candidates toward the exits, behind closed doors. Before any votes had been cast in the primary, the party would consolidate behind just one choice. It would have been bloody and left a bitter taste for everyone. Instead, the opposite happened. Working Families, knowing that majorities rule and that no one can spoil a ranked-choice race, endorsed four candidates. Instead of a single endorsement that served as a kiss of death for other progressives, they backed a slate, allowing voters time to tune in and for candidates to make their pitches. Now Mamdani is the Democratic nominee and the overwhelming favorite to go from 1% all the way to Gracie Mansion. There are many reasons why this 33-year-old pulled off a seemingly unthinkable upset and soared from obscurity to the most talked about Democrat in the nation overnight. He energized young people, reached voters where they are on social media and built an unstoppable coalition. He and his volunteers talked to everyone, everywhere. Ranked-choice voting (RCV) encouraged and incentivized that joyous, barnstorming approach. And while Mamdani ultimately would have won a plurality contest or a ranked-choice one, his super-long-shot candidacy might have been squelched at the very beginning under the old system with its different electoral incentives. His victory shows how much more real power voters have under ranked-choice voting. To be clear: RCV is a party-neutral and candidate-neutral tool. Its job is to produce a majority winner with the widest and deepest support from any field of more than two candidates. It puts an end to spoilers and to the impossible, wish-and-a-prayer calculation that voters otherwise have to make when faced with multiple candidates, some of whom they really like and some of whom they do not. Liberals, conservatives, independents and moderates have run and won under RCV, from coast to coast. But while RCV might be strictly non-partisan, it is decidedly pro-voter – and almost always produces a more positive, issue-focused campaign that looks to drive up turnout and appeal to as many people as possible. A ranked-choice campaign rewards engagement and encourages coalitions; it's a race where instead of tearing down opponents, candidates point out areas of agreement and ask to be a voter's second choice. Voters love RCV and find it easy to use. According to a new SurveyUSA poll of New York voters, 96% said their ballot was easy to fill out. More than three-quarters of voters want to keep or expand RCV. And 82% said they had taken advantage of RCV and ranked at least two candidates. (These numbers are similar across RCV elections, and a powerful rejoinder to critics who insist, despite evidence to the contrary, that it's too confusing.) A remarkable number of New Yorkers saw first-hand how RCV makes our votes more powerful – they had the freedom to express themselves and rank a long-shot first, but still had their vote count for either Mamdani or Cuomo in the ranked choice tally. Perhaps the high marks are of little surprise: voters received a campaign unlike most any other. The tone remained positive and issue-based. Instead of cutting each other down, candidates lifted each other up: Mamdani and Brad Lander cross-endorsed each other, cutting joint ads, riding bicycles together to shared events, sharing the couch on Stephen Colbert, and even sharing a stage at Mamdani's victory party. Jessica Ramos and Whitney Tilson endorsed Cuomo and said that they would rank him second. Mamdani helped Adrienne Adams with fundraising. Sign up to Fighting Back Big thinkers on what we can do to protect civil liberties and fundamental freedoms in a Trump presidency. From our opinion desk. after newsletter promotion Voters always say that they want more choice at the polls, candidates who engage with them, and a genuine, issue-based campaign. They got exactly that in New York City because of ranked choice. And the historic turnout levels – more than 1 million New Yorkers cast ballots, the highest number since the 1980s – shows that when voters get that kind of elevated, engaging campaign, they show up and get involved. When voters have the opportunity to consider new candidates campaigning in creative new ways, the frontrunner with the early name recognition and largest donors can be eclipsed by a newcomer who started at 1%. And instead of going scorched-earth on each other before the general election, even some of the 'losers' seem to have had their status elevated: Lander finished third, and instead of being an asterisk, he has now expanded his base and likability for a future campaign. The majority winner in this race was Zohran Mamdani. But it's also easy to suggest the real winner might be ranked-choice voting. In a moment when so many of our elections are fraught and polarized, all of us looking for a more unified and hopeful path forward – the 'politics of the future', as Mamdani called it when he declared victory – should take a close look at what just happened in New York as proof that stronger elections are truly possible. Outside of Washington, cities and states are becoming laboratories of democracy once again. New York's adoption of ranked-choice voting led to just the kind of campaign our politics so desperately needs: a giant field of candidates presenting their vision of the future, building coalitions, without any time squandered on 'spoilers' or anyone pushed to drop out and consolidate early. In Portland, Oregon, meanwhile, voters modernized government and moved to proportional representation to elect the city council, broadening representation to groups and neighborhoods that have never before had a seat at the table. When voters make these changes, they like them, defend them, and expand them, as we have seen in New York, Maine and Alaska. And it won't take long for people to ask why they can't have ranked choice and proportionality in all their elections. David Daley is the author of Antidemocratic: Inside the Right's 50-Year Plot to Control American Elections as well as Ratf**ked: Why Your Vote Doesn't Count

Trump scorches Elon Musk's plans for a third party: ‘TRAIN WRECK'
Trump scorches Elon Musk's plans for a third party: ‘TRAIN WRECK'

The Independent

timean hour ago

  • The Independent

Trump scorches Elon Musk's plans for a third party: ‘TRAIN WRECK'

President Donald Trump delivered a brutal takedown of Elon Musk 's plans to launch a third party Sunday evening - calling his former ally a 'train wreck.' In a lengthy Truth Social tirade, Trump said Musk has gone 'off the rails' in recent weeks, and repeated his theory that the tech mogul's problem with the sweeping tax bill signed into law on Friday was its elimination of incentives for electric vehicles. 'I am saddened to watch Elon Musk go completely 'off the rails,' essentially becoming a TRAIN WRECK over the past five weeks,' Trump wrote. 'He even wants to start a Third Political Party, despite the fact that they have never succeeded in the United States – The System seems not designed for them,' he added. 'The one thing Third Parties are good for is the creation of Complete and Total DISRUPTION & CHAOS, and we have enough of that with the Radical Left Democrats, who have lost their confidence and their minds!' Trump first addressed Musk's plans for the new-found 'America Party' during a press gaggle Sunday afternoon before he boarded Air Force One. 'I think it's ridiculous to start a third party,' Trump said, adding later: 'So he can have fun with it, but I think it's ridiculous.'

First session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks ended inconclusively, Palestinian sources say
First session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks ended inconclusively, Palestinian sources say

Reuters

timean hour ago

  • Reuters

First session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks ended inconclusively, Palestinian sources say

CAIRO, July 7 (Reuters) - The first session of indirect Hamas-Israel ceasefire talks in Qatar ended inconclusively, two Palestinian sources familiar with the matter said early on Monday, adding that the Israeli delegation didn't have a sufficient mandate to reach an agreement with Hamas. The talks resumed on Sunday, ahead of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's third visit to the White House since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to power nearly six months ago. "After the first session of indirect negotiations in Doha, the Israeli delegation is not sufficiently authorized and is not authorized to reach an agreement with Hamas, as it has no real powers", the sources told Reuters. Netanyahu said, before his departure to Washington, that Israeli negotiators taking part in the ceasefire talks have clear instructions to achieve a ceasefire agreement under conditions that Israel has accepted.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store