Airlines in Nigeria. in Iran and Syria. A multi-month naval encirclement of , which portends escalation, alongside dozens of strikes just outside its territorial waters. And a budget that breaks all records in military spending, surpassing the outrageous – at one time – “barrier” of one trillion dollars. How does all this square with his stated desire to be awarded the s, and with the more general peacemaker image he and his staff project of himself?
Attack, attack, attack
The latest chapter in the action of the US Armed Forces was the air strike ordered by the US president against extremist Islamists in North West Nigeria, specifically citing the action of the jihadists of the Islamic State of West Africa (known by the initials ISWAP). The news was announced by Trump himself, in his familiar electrified style, speaking of “terrorist scum” and declaring that there will be more “dead terrorists if the slaughter of Christians continues”.
The African Command of the US Armed Forces (AFRICOM) confirmed that the operation took place in Sokoto state, in coordination with the Nigerian authorities, without elaborating on the number of dead and wounded. The logic of the targeted air strike, where the operational advantage of the American war machine remains indisputable and losses are minimal, is certainly not a new practice of the Trump presidency. After all, it has only been a few 24 hours since the US carried out a surprise air strike, codenamed Operation “Hawkeye Strike”, carrying out more than 70 strikes in Syria against Islamic State (ISIS) targets, in response to the death of US soldiers.
Netanyahu’s proposal
During his first year back in the White House, President Trump has given the “green light” to repeated strikes on ships in the Caribbean that the US government says are transporting drugs to the US. US forces – involving the South American Central Military Command (SOUTHCOM) together with the Coast Guard – have carried out 29 attacks on vessels off Venezuelan territorial waters since the beginning of September until last Friday, which have claimed the lives of 105 people.
Earlier this year, Iran also experienced the “bitter taste” of the deadly superiority of the American Air Force. On June 22, as part of Operation Midnight Hammer, the Air Force in cooperation with the US Navy launched a massive attack on three critical Iranian nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The Wall Street Journal reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu plans to raise the issue of joint military action between Tel Aviv and Washington on his upcoming trip to the White House this week, citing the threat posed by Tehran’s progress in its ballistic missile program.
Interpretations and explanations
What reasons explain this scaling in longitude and latitude that extends from the Americas to Asia and Africa, thus covering almost the entire globe? Of course, each case has its peculiarities and responds to separate conditions and interests. In that of Venezuela, the intensity of American intervention is explained by what has been called the “Donroe Doctrine”, that is, the updating in 21st century terms of the popular 19th century “Monroe Doctrine”, which in its historical context described the anxieties and aspirations of the young American state, on its way from ethnogenesis to world domination. With this context brought forward to today, the phrase “restoring American preeminence in the Western Hemisphere,” included in the recent US National Security Strategy, is indicative of the intentions of the White House in general and Donald Trump in particular.
The motivation is different in Nigeria, where the US president’s keen interest should be seen in light of the influence he has on the evangelical Right, one of the strongest pools of votes for the Republican Party traditionally. That Christians face religious persecution is a constant contention of some of Trump’s evangelical base and politicians who represent it, such as Sen. Ted Cruz. In Iran, the US intervention came after strong pressure from its close ally Israel in the region and contained the concept of a quick escalation that would lead to a short end to the war. As for Syria again, the explanation should be sought in the prestige of the superpower that is bequeathed to each occupant of the White House.
Situational awareness
The above leads to the conclusion that the brutal US war machine serves short-term plans of the Trump administration, with the ever-present concern of not being exposed to American public opinion. However, the above deserves to be combined with a deeper contradiction of Trump’s foreign policy. As Cato Institute analyst and fellow Leon Haddar notes in a recent article on the Asia Times website, “Trump’s unconventional foreign policy is driven by realism but lacks strategic depth, leading him to take risks that are uncertain whether he can serve.”
Indeed, the great inward-looking promise of the slogan “Make America Great Again” is not easy to balance with the ambition of the continental hegemon and the entrenched obligations of a monopoly world. Quoting Trump’s claim to have ended “eight wars in ten months” and brought “peace to the Middle East after 3,000 years” in contrast to his own statement that “the US needs Greenland for national security reasons” is rather evidence of a more contemporary understanding of international affairs.
