As Trump crafts his messy and divisive foreign policy, allies are scared and China and Russia are celebrating
By James STAVRIDIS
A decade ago, in the midst of the so-called Forever Wars, I would have dreaded entering my office in the morning, fearing bad news from the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. As the military commander of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, I was responsible for more than 150,000 American and international troops in daily combat. We had nearly 2,000 young men and women killed in action during my four years there, and the cause – again and again – was improvised explosive devices. The term “IED” continues to haunt me in my dreams.
As I’ve watched the first few months of President Donald Trump’s administration interact with an often distrustful world — it was practically a cause for celebration that he left this week’s G-7 meeting (early) without causing a major diplomatic incident — that deadly acronym has come back to haunt me. The emerging Trump doctrine can be accurately described by a very different version of the letters IED.
“I” stands for isolation. Pursuing his America First agenda, Trump seeks to minimize or end U.S. engagement with international organizations, particularly those associated with the United Nations. Trump thinks the U.S. can do quite well on its own; in essence, “We can farm it here, drill it here, make it here, educate ourselves here, invent it here. We are protected by great, beautiful oceans. Let’s retreat.” This is hardly new in terms of American history, which has had long periods of disengagement from the world. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson warned against “messing up alliances” abroad more than two centuries ago.
Isolationism was the dominant force in US foreign policy in the 1930s, and we paid a heavy price for it in World War II.
What stands out today is the sudden threat to abandon NATO, the UN, the World Health Organization, the Paris climate agreement, the North American Free Trade Agreement, and Ukraine’s fight against Russian dismemberment. In other words, the US could walk away from the post-war international order it built, which has been immensely beneficial to Washington. And to understand the inherent contradictions of isolationism, follow the civil war within its MAGA movement for the support it needs for Israel. The “E” in this new IED stands for disorderly.
Most international systems – diplomatic, economic, commercial, military – can withstand a certain amount of unexpected shocks. But the Trump Doctrine extends this considerably along the lines of Nixon’s “madman” theory: The administration seems to be generating a sense in world affairs that its unpredictability should be respected and appeased, thereby reaping special benefits. But the level of capricious decision-making is reaching a point where the system can no longer tolerate it. Trump’s tariffs are a perfect example: The dizzying array of counter-decisions that began with April’s “Liberation Day” (which many of my international colleagues call “Destroy Day”) is starting to backfire.
Even his main achievement on trade, a pact with the United Kingdom, is limited in scope and remains partly a work in progress.
Imposing major trade sanctions on allies, friends, partners, and rivals—then lifting or suspending them because of geopolitical situations, domestic political pressure, or outright chaos—is causing America’s rivals to try to cut us off, and our friends to look for other options. Which brings us to the third letter: “D,” for disruptive. I worry about the effects of isolation and messy policy choices—but they can ultimately be reversed. Unfortunately, the rift being sown between the United States and its once closest allies and friends may be irreversible. In Brussels, Paris, London, Berlin, Warsaw, and other European capitals, policymakers see a transatlantic bridge collapsing into the cold, unforgiving ocean.
Next week’s NATO summit is a crucial moment. Could the European Union soon decide to blow up NATO before Trump does and create a continent-wide security alliance without the US?
Can they invite Canada and Mexico to join a new transatlantic area of security and free trade? Yes.
Already, Europeans are significantly increasing their defense spending and building up their industrial base. Yes, it is time for Europeans to start taking more responsibility for their own security. But doing so themselves, with European manufacturers, would be a major blow to the major U.S. defense contractors who supply most of these countries’ advanced systems today. In Asia, will Japan and Korea, with their giant economies and capable militaries, forge new ties with Beijing?
Would a greater openness to China’s broader economy look more appealing than a knee-jerk deal with Washington? If Tokyo and Seoul move in that direction, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia and even Singapore could follow. What about a broad Pacific free trade area without the US? Thanks to Trump, a slightly more modest one already exists: the 11-nation Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Could China become the 12th member? It sounds implausible, but if the US doesn’t change course, it could happen.
So now that we have identified Trump’s IED, what can we do about it? As for isolation, a big part of the solution actually lies abroad. Leaders in allies and friends simply need to understand that with Trump in the White House, this is a transactional world in which power matters more, flattery follows, and principles unfortunately carry little weight. Trump has met with a number of European leaders and has had some positive results, notably a trade deal with the United Kingdom. He will attend the NATO summit next week and will no doubt take credit for boosting allies’ defense spending – and the Europeans will applaud him.
Former National Security Advisor Mike Waltz remains nominated for the job of United Nations representative, a credible appointment (albeit a demotion for him).
The Olympics and World Cup in Los Angeles – co-hosted with Canada and Mexico – could help draw the US back into other international forums.
Yet there is little that can be done about America’s erratic behavior. It is driven by Trump’s unique decision-making style, and the rest of the world must accept that sudden and dynamic change is the nature of this administration. Tactics will always trump strategy. Patience will be necessary, and overreacting to the first attacks will be a mistake. Perhaps the world leader who has handled Trump best so far is Mexico’s Claudia Sheinbaum, who has used a clever combination of patience, charm, and force—including her successful opposition so far to allowing U.S. troops across the border to fight drug cartels.
A face-to-face meeting between the two presidents at the G-7 was canceled due to Trump’s early departure, but it is likely they will meet soon.
Ultimately, Trump’s divisiveness is the most difficult challenge. Human nature has a way of interfering in international relations, and when people feel devalued and disrespected—even leaders of powerful nations—permanent divisions can ensue. Perhaps Congress—and even some of the president’s top advisers—will present him with the arguments for avoiding unnecessary clashes and heartbreak. Lord Palmerston, the prime minister of the United Kingdom in the mid-19th century at the height of the British Empire, said, “We have no permanent allies and we have no permanent enemies. Our interests are eternal and permanent, and these interests it is our duty to pursue.” This idea, self-interest above all else, is a good summary of Trump’s approach to international relations.
Let us hope that America’s friends, partners, and allies understand this reality and conclude that the benefits of cooperation with the United States outweigh the frustrations and divisions. Even the most dangerous improvised weapons can be disabled.
