Is Trump’s Iran strategy working?

EPA-EFE//JIM LO SCALZO
US President Donald J. Trump departs the Diplomatic Room of the White House in Washington after discussing the Iran nuclear deal. 

- Advertisement -

US President Donald Trump’s authorization of the targeted killing of Iranian Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani is, in many ways, similar to his administration’s approach to trade. In both cases, the administration has demonstrated a willingness to surprise by unilaterally leveraging US strength in the pursuit of long-term outcomes, despite considerable short-term risks and without wide consultations. As President Ronald Reagan showed in the 1980s with his strategy vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, such aggressive unilateralism can work. But it is best used selectively and sparingly.
In seeking to address long-term US (and European) grievances against certain Chinese trade practices, the Trump administration decided to abandon the traditional approach of seeking redress through existing multilateral institutions like the World Trade Organization. Instead, it opted for what game theorists call a non-cooperative approach, imposing harsh tariffs on Chinese imports, and then threatening even more should China retaliate. By weaponising what is traditionally an economic-policy tool, the US has been able to pursue national-security objectives alongside economic and financial goals.
So far, at least, the underlying calculation has worked for Trump. Just like his unilateral push to overhaul the North American Free Trade Agreement, he has shown a willingness to tolerate some damage at home in the hope that the damage inflicted on the other parties would be far greater and force them to make concessions.
The Reagan administration perfected this approach when it embarked on an accelerated arms race with the Soviet Union (or what Reagan labeled the “evil empire”). In ratcheting up defense spending, Reagan leveraged America’s economic and financial strength in the knowledge that the Soviets could not possibly keep up. In the end, he secured not just a narrow tactical victory, but a wider geopolitical triumph, eventually culminating in the Soviet Union’s collapse.
Pressing an adversary into a corner in the hope that it will make a mistake is an old strategy. And as with any strategy, it comes with potential costs and risks. In Reagan’s case, his administration had to bear the economic and political costs of creating large budget deficits, as well as the risk of a serious military confrontation with the Soviets.
In the case of NAFTA, the Trump administration ran the risk that retaliation by Canada and Mexico would result in beggar-thy-neighbor outcomes for all. After an initial attempt to do so, however, they made many of the concessions the US wanted and that are now included in the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). China, however, initially reacted differently, and may have overplayed its hand. By prolonging trade tensions with the US through an extended tit-for-tat escalation of tariffs, the authorities allowed the economy to slow and prompted many companies to start diversifying their supply chains in an effort to reduce their reliance on China. The new mantra among a growing number of those operating in China reflects this: “In China, for China.”
The immediate effect of these developments has been to complicate China’s effort to implement the structural reforms needed to maintain its historic (if not unprecedented) rise. But over the longer term, the further-reaching effects of the trade war could increase the possibility that China will become ensnared in the middle-income trap, like so many developing countries before it. If that happens, the US will have managed to avert the global economy’s full evolution from an American-led order to a bipolar one.
All of this takes us to Iran, where the Trump administration’s recent confrontation seems to be following the same playbook. The pattern is clear: The administration takes a surprise step that its predecessors might have considered, but never pursued; it does so without wide internal and external consultations. The immediate result is a significant spike in tensions, with third countries (including allies) raising concerns about America’s unilateralist turn. The adversary (in this case Iran) issues a response that, while less severe, leads it also to make a tragic mistake (the accidental downing of a civilian passenger flight). Now, even the European countries that had long sought to salvage the 2015 Iran nuclear deal are accusing Iran of violating that agreement.
How this conflict will play out remains to be seen, but it is already clear that the US has made some gains, and that the greatest immediate risk – an outright war or a destabilising asymmetrical conflict – has been avoided, at least for now.
Again, however, this is not to suggest that the strategy of pressing one’s relative strengths is always advisable. Excessive reliance on aggressive unilateralism risks dismantling an international architecture that has served US interests well. Moreover, the Trump administration’s actions, if pressed too hard, could force third countries to make choices that run counter to US interests. Witness, for example, some countries’ continued willingness to deepen their economic and financial relationships with China through its “Belt and Road Initiative,” despite US objections.
In the end, aggressive unilateralism is not an approach that can be applied as a general rule. It should be used in a highly selective and infrequent manner, and only after a careful assessment of the costs and benefits. Done right, it can help achieve targeted gains while containing collateral damage. But if it is abused, far-reaching unintended consequences could follow, implying ever-higher costs over time.

- Advertisement -

Subscribe to our newsletter

Latest

EU Commission plans Russian gas phaseout as MEPs propose easing pre-winter storage targets

Ensuring gas supply security ahead of the winter season,...

What chance for peace in Sudan?

The conflict in Sudan has raged for two years,...

The ruling of the EU Court on “Golden passports” and the consequences in Tirana

“Whatever the European Court decides," and “If it says...

Don't miss

EU Commission plans Russian gas phaseout as MEPs propose easing pre-winter storage targets

Ensuring gas supply security ahead of the winter season,...

What chance for peace in Sudan?

The conflict in Sudan has raged for two years,...

The ruling of the EU Court on “Golden passports” and the consequences in Tirana

“Whatever the European Court decides," and “If it says...

Taking off: Qatar’s strategic rise in global aviation

For Qatar, an important development took place recently as...

From shovels to shadows: The Soviet legacy behind Georgia’s authoritarian drift

In the early hours of April 9, 1989, Soviet paratroopers launched a brutal crackdown on peaceful protesters in Tbilisi, the capital of the then-Georgian...

What chance for peace in Sudan?

The conflict in Sudan has raged for two years, causing immense human suffering, regional instability, arms proliferation and massive displacement of the population. South...

The ruling of the EU Court on “Golden passports” and the consequences in Tirana

“Whatever the European Court decides," and “If it says it can’t be done, we won’t do it; if it says it can, we will.”This...

Taking off: Qatar’s strategic rise in global aviation

For Qatar, an important development took place recently as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), approved the final phase of its own airspace, the...

The Geoeconomic Repercussions of Trump’s Tariff Pause: A Balkan Perspective

On April 2, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs under the banner of “Liberation Day”—a dramatic economic maneuver that reintroduced a 10...

Zeno’s Arrow and Albania’s membership in the EU

Recently, the position of the incoming German government coalition (government) between the CDU/CSU and SPD parties regarding the enlargement of the European Union into...

Back to the 1970s: Flared trousers and tank tops. Is this the result of Trump’s tariff tantrums?

There are somewhere some dreadful photographs of this author wearing what we all once thought were the height of fashion and style. Generally, that...

Does the EU really stand for its basic values in the Balkans?

The visit of the EU Enlargement Commissioner Ms. Marta Kos to Albania on March 13-14 seems to have been another failed opportunity for the...