In the midst of recent conflict developments between Israel and Iran, the Trump administration recently detailed the newest strategy and procedures for U.S. military interference. Contrary to Trump’s alleged reluctance toward escalating violence in the Middle East, his recent decision to directly involve the U.S. in the foreign war has alarmed his “America-first” isolationist supporter base. However, in defense of the recent military intervention, Vice President J.D. Vance coined a name for this strategic military framework: “The Trump Doctrine.”
On Tuesday night at the Ohio Republican Dinner, Vance explained the doctrine’s key elements: “No. 1, you articulate a clear American interest, and that’s—in this case—that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon. No. 2, you try to aggressively diplomatically solve that problem. And No. 3, when you can’t solve it diplomatically, you use overwhelming military power to solve it, and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”
Some see this new doctrine as an impromptu effort to organize an established framework for an impulsive military decision that breaches Trump’s isolationist views, a position he had heavily promoted during his campaign. According to Reuters, Middle East analyst Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, believes Trump lacks explicit strategy or foresight: “I don’t think Trump has a doctrine. I think Trump has only held instincts.” Based on Vance’s three-step detailing of the framework, the “doctrine” seems to be a loosely pieced-together strategy procedure, beginning with a defined “interest” or purpose, an “aggressively” diplomatic approach, and concluding with a retreat in any case where the conflict escalates for a prolonged period of time.
The recent conflict development between Iran and Israel is rooted in several factors, beginning with Iran’s history of ideological opposition to the development of an Israeli state and most recently escalated by fears of a potential Iranian nuclear program. It is for this reason airstrikes from Israel and the U.S. have specifically targeted known Iranian nuclear facilities. According to Al Jazeera, the Israeli government claims their attack was “preventive,” an effort to address an “immediate, inevitable threat” from Iran’s potential to build a nuclear bomb. However, there is no confirmed evidence for this claim of Iran’s nuclear capacity. Instead, it is Iran’s potential for military advancement that raises fears among the U.S. and Israel.
On Saturday, the U.S. entered the conflict, labeled “The 12 Day War,” for the same reason: to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Launching surprise airstrikes and joining the Israeli offensive, the U.S. attacked three Iranian nuclear sites in what was dubbed “Operation Midnight Hammer.” According to a United Nations news report, the humanitarian toll of the hostilities between Iran and Israel is mounting; of the 430 Iranian individuals killed, most have been civilians, and Israel has reported 25 deaths. Iran also faced extensive infrastructural damage as open-source satellite imagery reveals tunnels and buildings were hit at the Fordow nuclear facility.
Experts and observers agree that military action will not resolve this conflict. Assistant Secretary-General for Political Affairs Miroslav Jenča told U.N. ambassadors that the world is facing “a dangerous moment” following the recent U.S. bombing operation. He warned the council that the region is at risk of being “engulfed in further instability and volatility,” with “no military solution to this conflict.”
The same administration that coined and promoted “The Trump Doctrine” also skipped the most crucial aspect of the framework: to first approach a conflict diplomatically. Instead, the United States impulsively launched a violent airstrike in the name of preventive measures to hinder Iranian military advancements. Going forward, the U.S. must adhere to a humanitarian perspective in order to pioneer the virtues of a true ceasefire solution.
