“The Trump Doctrine”: A Year of Surprises!

Within just a few months, U.S. President Donald Trump has drawn a somewhat bewildering map of America’s role in the world.

He has threatened to annex Greenland “by force, if necessary,” pushed toward a political agreement to end the war in Gaza, and engaged in mediation efforts to bring the war in Ukraine to an end.

He also did not hesitate to strike Iran last June, nor to arrest the Venezuelan president in early January and put him on trial.

On the surface, these moves appear to reflect divergent policies. As a result, America’s current handling of international issues looks more like a riddle—both to its allies and its adversaries.

A year into his second term, debate continues over what has come to be called the “Trump Doctrine,” which the National Security Strategy document describes as a “Trumpian addition” to the doctrine of President James Monroe (who died in 1831), placing the Western Hemisphere at the top of U.S. priorities.

Some observers see it as a transactional, profit-and-loss–based policy. Others view it as an aggressive reworking of the “America First” slogan, or an attempt to redraw spheres of influence under an isolationist approach.

At times, descriptions of Trump’s foreign policy even verge on contradiction. This, experts who spoke to Alhurra say, is largely due to the insistence on imposing the logic of a fixed “doctrine” on a policy that is shaped primarily within a narrow circle, in which the president’s personality plays a decisive role—one whose internal mechanics are often difficult to decipher.

Walid Phares, who served as a political adviser in Republican circles close to Trump, says that assessing this phase requires “new metrics not familiar in previous U.S. administrations.”

According to Phares, this is not merely a theoretical framework. “Trump’s decisions—his handling of Europe over Greenland, which he wants to annex to the United States, for example, and his intervention as a ‘neutral’ mediator between Russia and Ukraine to end the war—confirm that national interest does not necessarily move in lockstep with the interests of allies.”

Aqil Abbas, a researcher at the Atlantic Council, points to the impact of Trump’s personality—difficult to predict in terms of reactions—on his policies. Abbas says Trump, particularly on Middle East issues, operates according to a policy of “unpredictability.” There are no long-term trajectories that can be reliably anticipated, and no constants that can be confidently built upon.

This mercurial nature, Abbas notes, is not limited to rhetoric; it extends to the decision-making process itself. On Iran, Trump has repeatedly threatened in recent days to launch a military strike if Tehran were to kill protesters demonstrating over deteriorating economic conditions. Initially, the threats appeared serious and were picked up by the media as a prelude to an imminent military intervention. Then the tone gradually softened, only to rise again, before entering a gray zone.

So far, there is no definitive answer in Washington—or in other capitals—to the question: Is the option of striking Iran still on the table?

The element of surprise in Trump’s positions, Abbas says, gives him the ability to impose his vision—as has happened when he transformed a Gaza ceasefire into a political agreement. In doing so, “Trump broke with negotiating frameworks that had governed the U.S. approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict for decades and managed to impose his twenty-point plan on both sides, particularly on Israel.”

He also shattered unwritten rules in Washington. No single actor is now able to monopolize influence over him—neither traditional allies, nor established lobbying groups, nor fixed conduits. Trump “steps outside the traditional frameworks and tools that constrained previous U.S. presidents, often surprising his allies with moves that run counter to their expectations.”

He supported Israeli strikes against Iran during the twelve-day war in June, Abbas argues, and then ended the war in a single moment.

Aaron David Miller, a veteran researcher at the Carnegie Endowment, however, is less inclined to describe Trump’s volatility as “intentional.” He believes Trump “now finds himself trying to reconcile his impulsive reaction to the protests” with his promises to assist demonstrators in Iran.

Still, Miller agrees that Trump alone among his predecessors has dealt with Israel in an unprecedented manner. He did not stop at political support but pressured Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept an American peace plan—a step that, Miller says, had never occurred before.

Trump’s shift from talking about a “Gaza Riviera” to forming a Palestinian technocratic government to administer the Strip unsettled even the closest observers of his Middle East policy.

For Robert Hamilton, a retired colonel and president of Delphi Global, however, the problem is no longer confined to erratic positions, but rather to the trajectory taking shape around them.

Hamilton argues that what distinguishes Trump’s foreign policy from previous administrations is an “explicit rejection of international institutions,” and an approach to power not as one tool among many, but as “the only currency deemed to have value.”

The National Security Strategy defines military and economic power as central tools for protecting U.S. interests, directly linking national security to deterrence, pressure, and the imposition of facts on the ground. It redefines the very concept of international relations, viewing alliances not as long-term commitments but as arrangements subject to renegotiation based on immediate returns.

“Any relationship, even with a friendly country, must be reshaped around a deal that benefits the United States. Without that, there is no guaranteed alliance,” says Walid Phares.

Trump does not exclude adversaries when it comes to deal-making. Phares adds that “the president sees no problem in striking deals even with an adversarial state like Iran, if it gives him what he wants.” This openness, however, is rarely accompanied by patience. When a deal stalls, the administration quickly shifts to pressure tactics.

Hamilton, for his part, warns that Trump’s and his circle’s “fascination” with the capabilities of the U.S. military—without constraints—could lead to a “strategic catastrophe” if power continues to be treated as a tool without limits.

According to Dana Stroul, a researcher at The Washington Institute for Near East Policy, what is new about U.S. foreign policy under Trump is also the way it is produced: decisions no longer pass through traditional channels, but are made within a narrow circle, with the president at its center.

Never before, she adds, has a U.S. president so clearly placed personal relationships and commercial interests at the heart of foreign policy. Under Trump, politics and economics intertwine with the personal, and major files are handled through envoys who are businessmen. “It is a new era in the practice of modern American foreign policy.”