Latest news with #TrumpDoctrine
BBC News
2 days ago
- Politics
- BBC News
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. --
Fox News
2 days ago
- Politics
- Fox News
A new low for Democrats, Newsom's $9 gas nightmare, and more from Fox News Opinion
Print Close By Fox News Staff Published June 27, 2025 Welcome to the Fox News Opinion Newsletter. HANNITY – Fox News host discusses the Democrats' response to the U.S. strike on Iran. Continue watching… HUGH HEWITT – Trump's Iran strike and Trump's Doctrine. Continue reading… TERROR AT THE GATE – Trump neutralized Iran. But one big Middle East threat still looms. Continue reading… EVERY WORD COUNTS – Language shapes our understanding of Trump's Iran strikes. Continue reading… SYSTEM IN CRISIS – Air traffic control system is held together with duct tape and eBay parts. Continue reading… RAYMOND ARROYO – Fox News contributor discusses the secretary general of NATO's comparison for President Donald Trump. Continue watching… PREPARED, NOT PARANOID – What you need to know to protect yourself from a possible terror attack. Continue reading… LIZ PEEK – New York's socialist nightmare is just beginning but there's still a way out. Continue reading… STEVE HILTON – Gavin Newsom's $9 gas nightmare looms over the Golden State. Continue reading… CARTOON OF THE DAY – Check out all of our political cartoons… Print Close URL
New Straits Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- New Straits Times
Latest US foray into military action has a name: Trump Doctrine
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 US 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 US 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 programme 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 US foreign policy," said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in response to a request for comment. 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" US-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 per cent of Americans surveyed in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday said they worried "that Iran may target US civilians in response to the US 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 US 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 programme."
Straits Times
4 days ago
- Politics
- Straits Times
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.
Reuters
4 days ago
- Politics
- Reuters
The latest US foray into military action has a name: The Trump Doctrine
WASHINGTON, June 25 (Reuters) - 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. 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."
