Is Trump now more likely to use military force?
Has US President Donald Trump found a new security doctrine with big air strikes taking the place of conventional wars? Should other countries expect more of this from the American military?
Even though we don't have all the information yet, President Trump has suffered very little blowback and won considerable praise for his actions last weekend. In the aftermath of the strikes, US Vice President JD Vance took to social media to say that "we are seeing a foreign policy doctrine develop that will change the country (and the world) for the better," adding that the US will use "overwhelming force" if necessary in the future.
Iran has barely responded and the US public hasn't taken to the streets in protest, despite the fact that polls show Americans are fed up with military entanglements in the Middle East.
So, it's worth asking whether this mission will lead President Trump to move away from diplomacy and embrace more of this sort of military action moving forward. Or, was the hit against Iran's nuclear programme really just a one-off, an exception to his isolationist tendencies?
I recently put that question to Richard Haass, a veteran US diplomat who has advised four presidents. Haass spent 20 years as president of the Council on Foreign Relations and is the author of more than a dozen books. He now writes the weekly newsletter Home & Away.
You can watch – or read – more of our conversation below.
Below is an excerpt from our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity.
Katty Kay: Richard, I wanted to frame this conversation in the context of what this strike on Iran means for Trump and his appetite, potentially, for these kinds of military strikes moving forward. Do you think he risks paying a price either here or abroad for airstrikes of this nature?
Richard Haass: I'm not sure how replicable it is in other circumstances. The only area where he may have done himself a slight disservice is in perhaps potentially exaggerating what they've accomplished, using words like "obliteration". Even if we destroyed a lot, we don't know how much material, enriched uranium, centrifuges the Iranians may have parked elsewhere. So, I think he has to be a little bit careful that he doesn't oversell this as a mission accomplished, problem solved.
But other than that, I think he's OK because, one, it was limited. Two, a lot of people would say Iran had it coming in the sense that it had misled the IAEA inspectors for a long time. No one on God's green Earth thought what the Iranians were doing was enriching uranium to generate electricity. So, I think people had just gotten tired of the whack-a-mole or kind-of cat-and-mouse game with the Iranians.
But again, I'm not sure this approach is replicable in terms of other countries potentially going nuclear, if it comes to that, or other situations. It doesn't lend itself to Ukraine. It doesn't lend itself to something with Taiwan or North Korea. I'm not sure this is a model or a template for American foreign policy going forward.
KK: If you were looking at this and had some concerns about this approach and that this might embolden President Trump to think, "Right, I found a new way of conducting American national security policy," you seem to be suggesting that actually this might not embolden him to think, "I'm going to use strikes like this again elsewhere."
RH: I really don't see it for a couple of reasons. One is his MAGA base. Their enthusiasm for this is constrained. I think in some ways he got through this one. They don't like to challenge him, but also it was bookended in terms of scale and time.
I'm a little bit hard-pressed when I look at the menu of things the United States faces. How many situations are analogous to this? I don't see too many. North Korea has passed this point in terms of its nuclear and missile programs, plus it has this massive conventional force. So, a use of force against North Korea could well lead to a second Korean War. That's not in Mr. Trump's playbook. He doesn't want direct confrontation with China or Russia if he could avoid it. He's talked about certain things in this hemisphere, but he's not going to attack Canada. He's not going to attack Mexico. I doubt he's going to do anything with Panama or Greenland. I just don't see it.
KK: In your experience working in presidential administrations, does having some kind of military success tend to give presidents a feeling that it's worth trying for something else, whether it's these massive airstrikes or not?
Let's say he really did want to take Greenland. Does what's happened in Iran over the last five days make him feel emboldened to put pressure on Denmark to give us Greenland? And other countries can now look at President Trump and say, "Wow, this guy actually means what he says, and he's not afraid to use force."
RH: My short answer is: I hope not. What was unique about Iran is they were something of a pariah, and there was a very limited specific target set, which many people were quite sympathetic to our attacking. I don't see any of that analogous in Greenland. You also can't attack the Panama Canal in order to gain control of it.
Let me take a different president: George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st president. He used force quite successfully in the Gulf War. Yet, he was quite hesitant later on to use force in the Balkans. So, it obviously depends on the president. And this president tends to go more by his gut than he does with careful interagency analysis. It's really a top-down administration, much more than a bottom-up one. That's not a criticism. It's just an observation.
But I would be nervous if too many people around him, much less himself, thought that this was a formula that could be easily applied elsewhere.
Whether you think about tariffs or these strikes or pulling out of an international arrangement or doing something else, this is not an isolationist presidency. The more I look at Trump 2.0, the more I see it as unilateralist, having a very narrow sense of what is America first and then applying it. The word I keep coming back to is "unsentimental". If you're a friend, you shouldn't necessarily assume that it buys you anything. And if you're a foe, you may be treated in a very open way. It's a surprisingly unbiased foreign policy, which I've never quite seen before.
KK: Do you still think that Trump himself is isolationist? You talked about the MAGA base being so, but from what he has done so far, would you call Trump himself an isolationist?
RH: Probably not. I would say more unilateral than isolationist. He has an allergy of sorts to big, open-ended military interventions. He has a narrower view of US interests. But he's used force several times. He's certainly not isolationist in the diplomatic sense, whether it's using tools like tariffs or sanctions or launching this or that proposal. So no, I don't think isolationism captures his foreign policy.
KK: You mentioned that you see this administration as a very top-down administration. What strikes me about the last couple of days, Richard, is the degree to which we have seen people around the president falling over themselves to flatter him. What are the risks of that approach?
RH: The downside of it is just what you would think: I wonder how many people tell the president what he doesn't want to hear. How many people speak truth to power, saying, "Hey boss, if you do something this way, you may be creating problems for yourself down the road." I don't see a lot of people doing that. The reading I get is that a lot of individuals are worried about losing access or losing jobs.
That's unfortunate, because the president won't be well served by that. For any CEO, whether you're president of the United States or president of a company, it's important to hear things you need to hear, rather than want to hear. Sometimes, you need to be saved from yourself.
You never want to be surprised when you're president. That's my bottom line. You never want to be surprised by what something triggers or costs. And I worry that this president is not going to get that kind of advice, certainly from his staff. I think foreign leaders are worried that if they antagonise him – everybody saw what happened to President Zelensky – I think they're worried that if they press their case too far, the bilateral relationship or their personal relationship will suffer.
I always thought the characteristic of a good relationship is not how often you agree, but it's your ability to disagree. I worry that if that goes away, then in many cases, the president simply won't have the benefit of hearing what he needs to hear.
--
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
31 minutes ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
ANDREW NEIL: Labour's hollow drivel can't conceal that the defence of the realm is not safe in their hands
Daddy did it! Donald Trump, designated 'Daddy' by Nato Secretary General Mark Rutte for knocking and Iranian heads together when they were behaving like 'two kids in a schoolyard', pulled off his second triumph of the week when Nato countries committed themselves to massive increases in defence spending. 'You are now flying to another great success in The Hague,' Rutte told Trump, ramping up the sycophancy while the US President was en route to the Nato summit, hard on the heels of the Israeli-Iranian ceasefire he'd engineered.
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Trump's 'giant win' frees him up to push on with his agenda with fewer blocks and barriers
As the president himself said, this was a "giant" of a decision - a significant moment to end a week of whiplash-inducing news. The decision by the US Supreme Court is a big win for President Donald Trump. By a majority of 6-3, the highest court in the land has ruled that federal judges have been overreaching in their authority by blocking or freezing the executive orders issued by the president. Over the last few months, a series of presidential actions by Trump have been blocked by injunctions issued by federal district judges. The federal judges, branded "radical leftist lunatics" by the president, have ruled on numerous individual cases, most involving immigration. They have then applied their rulings as nationwide injunctions - thus blocking the Trump administration's policies. "It was a grave threat to democracy frankly," the president said at a hastily arranged news conference in the White House briefing room. "Instead of merely ruling on the immediate case before them, these judges have attempted to dictate the law for the entire nation," he said. In simple terms, this ruling, from a Supreme Court weighted towards conservative judges, frees up the president to push on with his agenda, less opposed by the courts. "This is such a big day…," the president said. "It gives power back to people that should have it, including Congress, including the presidency, and it only takes bad power away from judges. It takes bad power, sick power and unfair power. "And it's really going to be... a very monumental decision." The country's most senior member of the Democratic Party was to the point with his reaction to the ruling. Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer called it "an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court". In a statement, Schumer wrote: "By weakening the power of district courts to check the presidency, the Court is not defending the Constitution - it's defacing it. "This ruling hands Donald Trump yet another green light in his crusade to unravel the foundations of American democracy." 2:57 Federal power in the US is, constitutionally, split equally between the three branches of government - the executive branch (the presidency), the legislative branch (Congress) and the judiciary (the Supreme Court and other federal courts). They are designed to ensure a separation of power and to ensure that no single branch becomes too powerful. This ruling was prompted by a case brought over an executive order issued by President Trump on his inauguration day to end birthright citizenship - that constitutional right to be an American citizen if born here. A federal judge froze the decision, ruling it to be in defiance of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has deferred its judgement on this particular case, instead ruling more broadly on the powers of the federal judges. The court was divided along ideological lines, with conservatives in the majority and liberals in dissent. 👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 In her dissent, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson wrote: "As I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of Government, the majority sees a power grab - but not by a presumably lawless Executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution. "Instead, to the majority, the power-hungry actors are... (wait for it)... the district courts." Another liberal Justice, Sonia Sotomayor, described the majority ruling by her fellow justices as: "Nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the constitution." Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who Trump appointed during his first term, shifting the balance of left-right power in the court, led this particular ruling. Writing for the majority, she said: "When a court concludes that the executive branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too." The focus now for those who deplore this decision will be to apply 'class action' - to file lawsuits on behalf of a large group of people rather than applying a single case to the whole nation. There is no question though that the president and his team will feel significantly emboldened to push through their policy agenda with fewer blocks and barriers. The ruling ends a giddy week for the president. 0:51 Last Saturday he ordered the US military to bomb Iran's nuclear sites. Within two days he had forced both Israel and Iran to a ceasefire. By mid-week he was in The Hague for the NATO summit where the alliance members had agreed to his defence spending demands. At an Oval Office event late on Friday, where he presided over the signing of a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, he also hinted at a possible ceasefire "within a week" in Gaza.
