For decades, American leaders have argued that their power comes with the responsibility of being the indispensable defender of a more stable and benevolent world built on democracy, defined borders, and universal values. Trump will leave these values behind and focus on the accumulation and exercise of power. His approach will be tested and defined in three conflicts: the Middle East, Ukraine, and America’s cold war with China.
By The Economist
Donald Trump’s critics have often accused him of brashness and isolationism. Yet even before he takes office on January 20, he has shown how inadequate these words are to describe what his second term is expected to bring. As his inauguration approaches, he has helped broker a ceasefire and a hostage deal in Gaza. Breaking taboos, he has expressed interest in controlling Greenland, with its mineral resources and strategic position in the Arctic. Trump’s second term will not only be more divisive than his first; it will also replace a vision of foreign policy that has dominated America since World War II.
For decades, American leaders have argued that their power comes with the responsibility to be the indispensable defender of a more stable and benevolent world, built on democracy, defined borders, and universal values.
Trump will abandon these values and focus on the accumulation and exercise of power. His approach will be tested and defined in three conflicts: the Middle East, Ukraine, and America’s cold war with China. Each shows how Trump has been driven to break away from the past decades: by his unorthodox methods, his opportunistic accumulation and use of influence, and his belief that only power creates peace. The Middle East illustrates his talent for unpredictability. The Israelis and Palestinians finally agreed to a deal on Gaza because he set a deadline by threatening that “everything would go to hell” if they failed.
He will have to keep pushing them to move the deal into the later stages. There has been no president since Richard Nixon who has thought that acting like a “crazy” can be a source of advantage. His instability is reinforced by pragmatism.
Unlike most peace brokers, Trump is not interested in the Middle East’s difficult history. The Abraham Accords, signed during his first term, suggest he will use the hostage release to promote a deal between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which he sees as the path to prosperity — and a Nobel Peace Prize. Iran’s allies have been devastated in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria. He too may be open to compromise. However, the birthplace of three monotheistic religions will be a stark test of whether people are truly willing to put aside their beliefs and grievances for a chance at prosperity.
Israeli and Palestinian extremists have often used violence to undermine peace plans. The Israeli right wants to annex Palestinian land. Iran is on the verge of engaging with America or pursuing a nuclear bomb. What if extremists and mullahs get in Trump’s way?
His response will be to increase pressure with sanctions or the threat of force, or to leave. That is also the choice he faces in Ukraine, where he has promised to stop the war. Because he has more influence over America’s allies than Vladimir Putin, the easier path is to retreat by cutting off support and imposing concessions on the government in Kiev – especially if, as his critics fear, he is sensitive to praise when Putin treats him like an “alpha.” But that would undermine his other goals.
Giving up would draw comparisons to Biden and his ill-fated withdrawal from Afghanistan. The opportunistic use of force has some benefits. Trump will continue to bully NATO members into spending more to defend themselves against Russia, which is a good thing. But it also has costs.
NATO can probably survive in the face of Trump’s threats to leave, trade squabbles, support for conservative national opposition parties, and Denmark’s bullying of Greenland sovereignty. Yet alliances thrive on trust. National conservatives who sympathize with Putin will act. Given its size, Denmark has lost as many soldiers as America in Afghanistan. Pushing for concessions on Greenland is the kind of treatment that presents America as a threat, not a protector. Despots will take comfort in the retreat from universal values. If Trump asserts a sphere of American influence that includes Canada, Greenland, and Panama, they will interpret this as an endorsement of their principle that international relations have always been a test of strength—useful when Russia wants Georgia or China claims the South China Sea.
If Trump disdains institutions like the UN, which embody universal values, China and Russia will dominate them and use them as conduits for their interests.
Trump’s camp argues that what matters is American power, and that this will lead to peace with China. They warn of the need to prevent a Third World War, noting that Xi Jinping wants to be able to take Taiwan by force by 2027. China is also rapidly building nuclear weapons and systematically acquiring strategic technology.
America, they say, must reinstate the ban; and the specter of “crazy” diplomacy, pragmatism, and the buildup of economic and military power is the way to do it. Unfortunately, when it comes to Taiwan, there is a contradiction. If the source of America’s power is to be ruthlessly pragmatic about values, tough on allies, and open to deals with adversaries, then these are precisely the conditions for Trump to trade Taiwan with China. Although many of the staunch anti-China advocates in his administration would fight against this, the very possibility points to a weakness at the heart of Trump’s approach.
When the exercise of power is disconnected from values, the result can be chaos on a global scale. If ultra-loyal and unfit figures like Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard are confirmed as heads of the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, chaos will spread domestically. Trump is ill-equipped to separate his interests from those of his country, especially when his own money and that of his associates, like Elon Musk in China, are at stake. By departing from the values that built America after World War II, Trump will give up the greatest strength that his despotic opponents do not possess.
