Trump dosn't want another war but his Rhetoric Could Stoke Many

 

By Wahab Raofi

The Prussian diplomat Klemens Wenzel Fürst von Metternich famously said, "When America sneezes, the world catches a cold." In much the same way, one could say that when America speaks, the world listens. American adversaries carefully analyze and adjust their agendas in response to U.S. actions, while regional powers focus on strategies to exert influence over their weaker neighbors.

Trump was quoted as saying he would not rule out using military or economic action to pursue acquisition of the Panama Canal and Greenland, part of a broader expansionist agenda he has promoted since winning the Nov. 5 election. From Greenland to Panama to Mexico, leaders are in shock. 

One has to wonder if Trump is even aware that such rhetoric undermines diplomatic norms, jeopardizes global stability and emboldens adversaries to take similar actions, potentially escalating conflicts beyond control. 

What does Trump, as an incoming president, aim to achieve by with such provocative statements? It seems he has long embraced the “madman” theory, that acting unpredictably is a good way to make credible threats and get adversaries to back down in confrontations. 

The idea harkens back to the Richard Nixon era. According to his staffer H.R. Haldeman, Nixon coined the term “madman theory,” explaining that he wanted the North Vietnamese to believe he was capable of doing anything to bring the Vietnam War to an end — up to and including the use of nuclear weapons. The madman theory posits that a leader who behaves as if he could do just about anything has a better chance of persuading other global actors to make concessions that they otherwise would not make.

The question is: Has it worked? No, it has not.

North Korea is a case study.

Trump increased the pressure on  Kim Jong Un, the North Korean dictator, by referring to him as “Rocket Man” and threatening him with “fire and fury.” However, Kim did not back down, despite Trump’s philosophy of “escalate to de-escalate.” This ultimately led Trump to change his approach, de-escalating the situation by meeting with Kim Jong-un, exchanging photographs and even what he called “love letters.”

Despite these unprecedented engagements, North Korea has continued to launch missiles and has recently become a close ally of Putin, sending thousands of troops to support Russia in its war in Ukraine. Unfortunately, direct engagement with a U.S. president elevated Kim's domestic and international legitimacy, all without requiring him to make significant concessions. Sending the wrong message can have far-reaching consequences, and worst of all, a vague message can be catastrophic.

History is marked by wars ignited by miscalculations or the improper use of language. In my lifetime, I have witnessed at least two major examples of this.

Saddam Hussein’s ambiguous statements about weapons of mass destruction (WMDs) were interpreted as an admission to their existence. Combined with President George W. Bush's rhetoric about a preemptive strike, this misunderstanding helped justify the invasion which led to a prolonged conflict, regional instability, and the rise of extremist groups.

In 1982, Argentine leaders believed that the British were no longer interested in retaining the Falkland Islands due to prior statements about the UK's reduced military commitment. By misinterpreting the UK's intentions, Argentina invaded the Falklands, prompting a military response from Britain. 

What is more dangerous this time around is that it would be easy for Trump is to carry out his quixotic agenda without significant opposition. As many commentators have pointed out, the people likely to be working for him will not welcome advisers who might try to restrain his actions. As his son Erick said, they want only loyalists. Trump will be his uninhibited self, free to pursue policies he has always favored.

Trump’s approach keeps U.S. allies on edge, fearing that waning American support signals a green light for Putin to bully neighboring countries and expand his sphere of influence, while also emboldening Chinese leaders to seize Taiwan.

In an interview with Al Arabiya, former National Security Advisor John Bolton said that while the United States may have legitimate interests in Greenland or the Panama Canal, one shouldn’t go around shouting out your national interests. Such matters should be addressed discreetly and quietly through diplomatic channels. This highlights Trump's lack of strategic foresight, as his undiplomatic rhetoric risks encouraging leaders like Vladimir Putin to justify Russia's invasion of Ukraine or emboldening Xi Jinping of China to escalate aggressive actions against Taiwan, all under the pretext of safeguarding national security.

Trump’s use of the “mad man” approach is no longer a secret; it has become predictable. The magic has worn off, and everyone in the world knows that Trump is barking rather than biting.

As one Soviet official explained, “Mr. Nixon used to exaggerate his intentions regularly.” Trump’s past track record has made him more predictable to a host of foreign leaders who had to deal with him the first time around. As it turns out, the first rule of the madman theory is that you do not talk about employing the madman theory.

Mr. Trump may get away with his statements at home because Americans are accustomed to his boasts — such as claiming he would resolve the Ukraine conflict in 24 hours or deport millions of illegal immigrants on his first day in office.

However, he sould be cautious when speaking on matters of foreign policy — the world is listening. As Nixon learned the hard way, words in international affairs can carry far. What a  U.S. president says is not just heard by the people, but it is interpreted, analyzed and acted upon by leaders and nations around the world.

The irony lies in Trump's claim that he opposes war, while his language often seems to provoke conflict more than promote peace.

I am not suggesting that Trump abandon pursuing security interests or use of U.S. military force as a last resort, but he should approach them through diplomatic channels. As Bolton suggested, these matters are best handled behind closed doors and quietly, rather than publicly, where adversaries could interpret his rhetoric as threatening.