Six months into his presidency, Trump’s high-energy, power-centric foreign policy has scored impressive wins. It is one of the most remarkable stretches of foreign policy gains in recent U.S. history. Without entangling the United States in endless conflict and without a single new American boot on the ground, Trump’s deft use of dialogue and “coercive diplomacy” is restoring our role as global peacekeeper.
Events have been moving in Trump’s direction. After the June 22 Air Force and Navy’s bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear program, Trump pressured Israel and Iran into a ceasefire that is still holding. Every president since Bill Clinton has vowed Iran would not obtain a nuclear weapon, but only Trump enforced the pledge.
Also last month, Trump lifted sanctions on Syria to give its new post-Assad government a chance. And at the U.S.’s insistent urging, Israel and Hamas in Gaza have agreed on a 60-day ceasefire and prisoner exchange framework. Trump is pressing Netanyahu to end the Gaza war, in part, so he can persuade Saudi Arabia to join other Arab states in recognizing the state of Israel.
In May, Trump’s short bombing campaign quelled the Houthi nuisance in Yemen and resulted in a ceasefire. In another blow to the Houthis, U.S.-backed Yemeni rebels last week seized a huge Houthi-bound weapons shipment from Iran. Though far from beaten, the Houthis’ capacity to wage war against Western shipping has been significantly reduced.
The Trump administration’s attention has extended to other smoldering conflicts. In April, Vice President Vance and Secretary of State Rubio helped India and Pakistan broker a ceasefire after a terrorist attack in disputed Kashmir threatened a major military escalation. Not to be overlooked, last month Secretary Rubio also helped manage a peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda to help end that decades-long conflict.
To bolster our position in Europe, at the NATO summit last month, Trump successfully cajoled the 32-member alliance to increase individual defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035. In a recent interview, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told The New York Times that without Trump, the alliance never would have agreed on the dramatic spending commitment. He insisted that Trump reaffirmed his commitment to the 76-year-old alliance as a counterbalance to Russia.
In short, the Trump administration is exercising global leadership at a high level. Dare we call it “statesmanlike”?
Peace Through Strength
What is the essence of Trump’s approach? His method resembles that of Richard Nixon in pursuing foreign policy based on power—“Peace through Strength”—and national interest over emotive Wilsonian idealism. Alliances, though important, need to be consistent with U.S. national interests. Trump seeks dialogue but is willing to back it with implicit force. He demonstrates flexibility in pursuing his objectives for peace. Importantly, he is willing to take risks to pursue his objectives, as the Iran attack demonstrates.
Trump has a history of using military force for targeted, achievable gains. His recent attack on Iran’s weapons program resembles his 2017 decision to enforce Obama’s red line by destroying Syria’s chemical weapons program, as well as the 2020 order to eliminate Iran Quds Force General Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for killing hundreds of U.S. troops during the Iraq War.
Trump’s brash brand of “realpolitik” causes some analysts to fear an abandonment of America’s commitment to a “rules-based international order.” What undermines this argument is that Trump’s objective is to establish peace where the “rules-based” order has clearly failed. Besides, even Nobel Peace laureate Barack Obama exercised U.S. military power outside the strictures of international law. Consider his 2011 bombing of Libya and his covert mission in Pakistan to kill Osama bin Laden. Trump merely eschews the highfalutin rhetoric that cloaks most American foreign policy objectives.
Granted, this realpolitik approach has had some drawbacks. Military strikes can be swiftly diminishing assets. The administration needs to demonstrate diplomatic patience with its adversaries. Perhaps most importantly, the president’s sharp elbows approach and the ongoing tariff disputes might alienate some allies. Meanwhile, Trump has encountered resistance from the isolationist wing within his own Republican Party. At the same time, he has had little success in rallying the opposition behind his policies, even the ones they claim to support. Despite bipartisan support for ending Iran’s nuclear weapons program, for example, only one Senate Democrat defended Trump’s ordering of the June 22 attack.
Yet, despite these headwinds, he has had a series of impressive successes.
Iran’s Nuclear Program a “Mission-kill”
So far, Trump’s “coercive diplomacy” toward Iran is paying dividends. A long-lasting taboo has been broken; Iran can be hit militarily without the world coming to an end. Israel and the United States may not have ended Iran’s nuclear menace, but it now appears most unlikely it will pursue a nuclear weapon. The program suffered extensive damage, with three major installations destroyed and 11 key scientists killed.
But more importantly, Tehran’s risk calculus in continuing their weapons program has risen dramatically. Any decision to sprint for an atomic bomb now must be weighed against the likelihood that Israeli and American intelligence will find out about it, and the precedent that both are willing to bomb Iran to destroy the illicit program. A nuclear weapons program now offers Iran neither security nor deterrence; the opposite, in fact.
As an added benefit, the attack brought some international clarity to the Iran menace. Skeptics can no longer seriously claim Iran wasn’t pursuing a bomb program. On June 23, the announcement by former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that this attack won’t stop its pursuit of a nuclear weapon let the cat out of the bag. German chancellor Friedrich Merz said last month that Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon “cannot be seriously disputed.”
Another important byproduct of the Iran attack was exposing the shallowness of the so-called CRINK (China, Russia, Iran and North Korea) alliance. For instance, despite having a strategic partnership with Iran, Russia offered no substantive help to the Islamic Republic. Indeed, on June 23, just a day after the U.S. attack, the Iranian foreign minister’s hasty trip to Moscow turned into a public humiliation, when Russian President Vladimir Putin begged off offering defense assistance. Meanwhile, other than public statements of support, China also has offered no material help to Iran.
The Challenges To Come
Trump’s security team performed well with the recent attack against Iran. Now the “Signalgate” snafu seems like a lifetime ago. His key advisers seem to be forged into a tight team, with Marco Rubio, as both secretary of state and acting national security adviser, emerging as the globe-trotting Kissinger to Trump’s Nixon.
The attack on Iran’s nuclear program bought us valuable time, but the impact of the action is a perishable commodity. It needs to be followed up with a strong diplomatic push and a credible threat of a further attack. The Trump administration has given Iran until the end of August to agree to a new nuclear deal. We must be willing to hit Iran hard again for noncompliance. Meanwhile, Israel will need to rebuild its effective on-the-ground intelligence network in Iran.
Trump also might need to build a bigger domestic constituency for his realpolitik approach. The Democrats’ effort to invoke the War Powers Act to restrict military action in the wake of the Iran strike suggests Trump might need to build more congressional support for a potential follow-on attack. Also, elements in the intelligence community continue to undermine Trump’s policy. A premature DIA damage assessment and a signals intelligence intercept, highly classified information, were both leaked to the press. Trump and his intelligence team need to lean on senior intelligence officials to stop these leaks, as they are a consistent drag on the intelligence community’s credibility.
The biggest near-term test will be advancing peace talks between Russia and Ukraine. His success with Iran perhaps encouraged Trump to engage in more aggressive “coercive diplomacy” with Russia. After being stiff-armed by Putin in one-on-one talks, Trump has broadened the weapons access that Ukraine will have from NATO’s arsenals. He has also promised more sanctions on Russia if there is no peace agreement in 50 days. Much like his opportunity to help Israel win its war against Iran, Trump now can help Ukraine defeat Russia’s “summer offensive,” which might induce Putin to seek peace seriously.
Finally, the main test will be whether the Trump administration can deter China from attacking Taiwan. In line with the “strategic ambiguity” exercised by his predecessors, Trump has refused to publicly commit to defending Taiwan directly. But clearly his administration prioritizes Taiwan’s defense. As a sharp signal to Beijing, this month’s Talisman Sabre joint U.S.-Australia military exercise includes 35,000 troops from 19 nations, the largest showing of its kind ever. Demonstrations of commitment like this one help position Trump for effective future negotiations with Xi Jinping. Nixon would approve.
 | A guest post by
|