An Inquiry into Trumps Foreign Policy and the Doctrines of Kissinger
Years ago Henry Kissinger then U.S. Secretary of State in a conversation with the renowned Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci presented an image of the American ideal. He stated: I always act alone. Americans like that. They like the cowboy who leads the wagon train by himself the cowboy who rides into town all alone on his horse maybe even without a gun because he doesn’t need to shoot. He acts thats all. In fact he is a classical Western hero.
1- The Phenomenon Named Trump
Years ago, Henry Kissinger, then U.S. Secretary of State, in a conversation with the renowned Italian journalist Oriana Fallaci, presented an image of the American ideal. He stated: "I always act alone. Americans like that. They like the cowboy who leads the wagon train by himself, the cowboy who rides into town all alone on his horse, maybe even without a gun, because he doesn’t need to shoot. He acts, that's all. In fact, he is a classical Western hero."
This now raises the question: Does Kissinger's description of the ideal American persona not evoke the image of Donald Trump, the former President of the United States?
Since Trump's ascent to power, many have predominantly viewed him as a unique and unconventional phenomenon: a narcissistic and populist businessman who took the helm of the world's largest economic and military power. 1 It appears as though, acting autocratically and relying on the extensive powers of the presidency, in the guise of an "emperor-president," he managed the United States like a commercial enterprise. His actions seemingly lacked a foundation in any clear and specific theory, and at best, as Stephen Walt suggests, were shaped by a form of "Neanderthal realism," or as Farah Stockman posits, based on a kind of "crude realism.
However, how accurate and comprehensive are these perceptions of Trump and his policies? And is it feasible to govern a country with the global dimensions and complexities of the United States without any theoretical or intellectual underpinnings? Such assertions seem somewhat simplistic. Perhaps, instead of settling for these superficial interpretations, it would be more prudent to seek the roots and clues of a deeper theoretical basis that guides and defines Trump's course of action.
2- Trump and the Theorists
Perhaps the most effective path to uncovering that theoretical thread is to analyze the perspectives of intellectuals who have openly lauded Trump's policies. Among them, it appears that no thinker has praised Trump more than Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. Secretary of State.
In an interview with Fareed Zakaria, Kissinger described Trump as "one of the most unique individuals" he had encountered in his lifetime, someone for whom "no problem seems to be an obstacle" and who could be recorded in history "as a very considerable president."
A closer examination of some key actions during Trump's presidency reveals significant parallels with Kissinger's renowned approaches:
For instance, by advancing the initiative known as the "Abraham Accords," Trump not only shifted the Palestinian issue from its previous priority and centrality in Middle Eastern affairs, diminishing its decisive role in regional equations, but also managed to forge an unprecedented coalition between Israel and several Arab nations against Iran. This constituted a fundamental transformation in the regional balance of power.
Regarding Trump's approach to Russia, Kissinger explicitly supported it. He assessed this rapprochement as an astute step to create a schism between China and Russia, the two principal powers of the "Heartland" in classical geopolitical thought—an approach similar to the one he himself employed during the Nixon administration to weaken the Eastern Bloc.
Even when the Ukraine war commenced, Kissinger, diverging from the prevailing consensus, made a bold and controversial recommendation that Ukraine end the crisis by ceding a portion of its territory—a proposal that Trump now also seriously advocates and considers the solution to the crisis.
Given this evidence and the examples cited, the hypothesis of a close alignment between Trump's intellectual framework and Kissinger's theories gains traction. This affinity provides a basis for the analysis that Trump's policies were not necessarily baseless or merely reactive, but rather can be understood and examined within the framework of a specific doctrine or worldview, particularly from the perspective of Kissingerian realism.
3- Kissinger and Trump
Henry Kissinger's unique strength lies in the fact that he is not merely an academic theorist; rather, he is a veteran statesman, a distinguished diplomat, and, most importantly, an experienced advisor. This combination has shaped his perspectives in a manner that is readily comprehensible and implementable by politicians. It is said that he taught the "madman theory" to Richard Nixon, and perhaps today he has encouraged or endorsed this same behavioral approach in Trump.
We now explore why we surmise that Trump's actions can be interpreted within Kissinger's theoretical framework. Several reasons support this hypothesis:
Firstly, a focus on international order alongside domestic priority: While prioritizing America's domestic issues, Kissinger simultaneously accords high importance to international order. Trump shares this approach; despite his "America First" rhetoric, particularly in the latter half of his presidency, he actively engaged in complex international issues. If international matters were genuinely unimportant to him and his focus was solely domestic, how can this level of involvement in global affairs be justified?
Secondly, an endeavor for a stable, but not necessarily hegemonic, order: Kissinger seeks to establish a stable international system. He believes new forces have emerged on the global stage challenging the existing order, and America must act to establish its desired order. This desired order, while positioning America in a leading and central role, is not necessarily hegemonic, as managing the world single-handedly would impose costs exceeding America's capacity. Kissinger's proposed order is a form of hegemonic-participatory system wherein other powers, while accepting America's leadership role, must also accept their share and responsibility in maintaining and administering it. From this perspective, America should be reformist regarding the global order—neither entirely conservative nor entirely revolutionary. Trump, like Kissinger, while not entirely negating the global order (though critical of it), endeavors through a negotiation approach based on threats to compel other nations to contribute more to the costs of this order and assume greater responsibilities.
Thirdly, the utilization of regional proxy powers: Kissinger was perhaps among the first American strategists to delegate a portion of the responsibility for maintaining regional security to proxy powers ("gendarmeries"), such as Iran during the Shah's era. Trump also appears inclined towards this model, viewing it as a means to reduce America's direct costs and responsibilities. For instance, in recent statements, Trump said that "if Iran negotiates with us, Israel will not attack Iran." Prior to that, he had retweeted a post that very harshly criticized Netanyahu, accusing him of intending to drag America into a war with Iran. The conclusion from these two stances by Trump is that, from his perspective, it is Israel that should act in line with American interests and play the role of "proxy" or "guardian of interests," not the reverse. It is unacceptable for Israel to push America towards war while itself sitting on the sidelines.
Fourthly, a pragmatic approach and avoidance of costly wars: Kissinger fundamentally has a pragmatic approach to war, evaluating it not based on ethical principles but on a cost-benefit analysis; war is justifiable only if its costs are less than its potential benefits. Trump shares this view; he avoids engaging in costly wars but has never repudiated war itself, rather emphasizing its "lack of cost-effectiveness" in specific circumstances. Like Kissinger, Trump believes in "diplomacy backed by power"—power that can manifest in the form of tariffs, sanctions, or military threats. Actions such as increasing tariffs are likely more a tool to bring rivals to the negotiating table and secure greater concessions than a strategy solely for strengthening the domestic economy.
Considering this evidence, it can be argued that the hypothesis of a close alignment between Trump's intellectual framework and Kissinger's theories gains strength. This provides a basis for the analysis that Trump's policies were not necessarily baseless or merely reactive, but rather can be understood and examined within the framework of a specific doctrine or worldview, particularly from the perspective of Kissingerian realism.
4- The Issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Kissinger attaches great importance to Iran. In his view, Iran is unique in three aspects:
Firstly, among all countries in the region, perhaps Iran possesses the most cohesive form of nationhood, the most precise tradition of governance based on national interests, the most continuous experience of national greatness, and the most accurate strategic record.
Secondly, the political system governing Iran, namely the Islamic Republic, is a unique system. It is a system with extraterritorial authority, and the Supreme Leader, who is at the apex of Iran's power structure, considers himself an international rather than a national figure. For the Supreme Leader, politics means a struggle for ideological dominance. Any change in Iran's tone towards the West is merely a tactic based on the Shi'a principle of taqiyya (dissimulation) and field negotiation for the continuation of the holy jihad. At the same time, this political system possesses extraordinary capabilities. Iran has shown extraordinary skill and persistence in achieving its goal of weakening the governmental system of the Middle East and reducing the West's influence in the region. Kissinger had also warned that in the vacuum created by the overthrow of ISIS, the empire of the Islamic Republic, with its Iranian and Shi'a background, would expand from Central Asia to the Mediterranean, and consequently, the danger of a Shi'a Iranian empire must be taken seriously.
The third unique aspect of Iran is its paradoxical relationship with the United States. There is no country in the world whose interests align with those of the United States, or at least has no reason for conflict, as much as Iran; yet, at the same time, there is no country in the world that is in conflict with the United States as much as Iran is. According to Kissinger, the reason for this strange paradox is not related to the country of Iran itself, but rather to the system based on the Supreme Leader in Tehran. According to Kissinger, this system uses the principles of jihadism in its words and deeds and explicitly criticizes the views and interests of the United States regarding the international order.
But what should be done with this very important and unique country? Kissinger says that Iran must choose between being an "idea" and being a "state." If a regional structure is established based on Westphalian states, and non-state actors such as ISIS, Hezbollah, the Taliban, and Al-Qaeda are eliminated or integrated into the state system, and provided that Iran ceases its support for groups like Hezbollah, the United States will open its arms to Iran. Kissinger, without much fear of Iran's nuclear program, advises that agreements should not leave Iran unsupervised without continuous verification. Ultimately, it is the United States that may be the only factor capable of determining, by pursuing its strategic goals, whether Iran follows the path of revolutionary Islam or takes its justified and proper place within the Westphalian system as a great nation. The United States must play this role not through disengagement, but through engagement. Kissinger wants to turn Iran into a "normal country," or even below normal, a country that does not even enjoy rights on par with Pakistan and Turkey.
If we look closely, we see that Trump, in both of his presidential terms, implemented Kissinger's doctrine to the extent possible. In his first term, he set twelve conditions for negotiation with Iran: seven conditions related to ending support for the "axis of resistance," three conditions related to the nuclear program, one condition related to the missile program, and one condition related to the release of American prisoners. According to Kissinger's doctrine, all these conditions relate to Iran's foreign policy, and no claims regarding human rights, democracy, and the like are observed. In accordance with Kissinger's doctrine, the most important priority (seven conditions) is allocated to ending Iran's support for non-state actors, and the three nuclear conditions are precisely based on Kissinger's view of establishing an effective verification system and eliminating any possibility of militarization. In his second presidential term, it is rumored that he limited his demand to preventing nuclear weapons. This is perhaps a smart move in the step-by-step implementation of Kissinger's doctrine, which ultimately, in the words of Mike Pompeo, will turn Iran into a normal country. However, if we have a historical perspective, like Kissinger, we must consider the possibility that there has likely been a justified and rational reason why all Iranian governments throughout history have concluded that they must be unique, and perhaps being unique in this unique geopolitical region has been and will continue to be the secret of this nation's and country's survival.
5- Conclusion
The conclusion of the present analysis is that the foreign policy of the Trump administration, contrary to popular belief, was not merely confined to his self-absorbed and populist personality or to a crude and Neanderthal realism. Rather, this policy was based on a solid theoretical foundation rooted in the teachings of Henry Kissinger; although these ideas and principles may have been hidden beneath the clamor of his seemingly unconventional behavior.
The most important aspects of this Kissingerian doctrine, reflected in Trump's actions, include key objectives and specific approaches. Among these are ending America's policy of being the "global gendarme" (except in vital cases), disregarding the promotion of liberal values in international relations, and the necessity of reforming the global order in such a way that the United States gains more benefit and incurs fewer costs. This approach also includes obliging powers like China and Europe to accept a greater share of responsibility for maintaining international order, seeking closer ties with Russia to create a rift between the two "heartland" powers, maximizing the use of Israel's capabilities and position to advance U.S. objectives in the Middle East, and targeting Iran to become a "normal" country confined within the framework of the Westphalian nation-state order and containing its nuclear program.
These are the key tenets of Kissinger's doctrine that the Trump administration diligently and seriously pursued.
Hamid Reza Haghighat, University Professor
(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)