Trump’s attempt to reinvent US power through economic coercion, proxy discipline, and selective warfare may be speeding up the decline of US global dominance in a world no longer willing to play by American rules.
Aymun Moosavi
The Cradle
Yet, beneath the theatrics lies a calculated attempt to reposition the United States as a dominant force within a shifting, multipolar global order. But in trying to reassert this dominance, is Trump inadvertently accelerating the very transformation he seeks to tame?
Redefining US hegemony
Since well into the last century, US foreign policy has sustained itself on a formula of military alliances, from NATO to bilateral defense pacts, to project unilateral power. This enduring doctrine has rested on the assumption that military supremacy is essential to contain peer rivals like Russia and China and to preserve the illusion of American exceptionalism.
Trump’s approach represents a rupture in the US's traditional posture. Rather than fortifying existing military alliances – which he views as unprofitable entanglements – his administration prioritizes economic leverage and the dollar’s supremacy. Military partnerships, especially with dependent states, are increasingly seen as burdensome relics of a past era.
This mindset was on full display in the Oval Office, when President Trump sharply rebuked his Ukrainian counterpart, Volodymyr Zelensky, and dismissed European pleas for more Ukraine funding.
Instead of being shackled by legacy commitments, Trump’s strategy seeks to recalibrate alliances around tangible US interests. Gone are the days of subsidizing weak partners and traditional allies.
This reality has become starkly apparent with UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s audacious proposal to send “boots on the ground” to Ukraine – a fantasy unachievable without US support. Hammering home the point, Trump put the British premier on the spot by asking him, “Could you take on Russia by yourselves?”
This doctrine has already shaped Trump’s first 100 days in office: the retreat from NATO leadership roles, withdrawal from the Ukraine Defense Contact Group (Ramstein), and an eight percent cut to the Pentagon’s budget over five years, marking a sharp deviation from the trajectory inherited from predecessor Joe Biden.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth frames the latter change as a ‘reinvention’ rather than mere budget cuts. However, beyond the rhetoric, the numbers tell a different story – the plan points to a significant reduction, amounting to a $50 billion loss each year.
But what truly underscores this shift is the US president’s openness to cooperating with Russia – an ideological break from Washington’s deep-seated devotion to great power competition. In Trump’s worldview, hegemonic power is secured not by clinging to outdated alliances, but by forging strategic ties with global heavyweights who offer mutual benefit – economic, not ideological.
War by other means
However, this does not mean that Trump envisions a halt to military action on every front, but only where direct military pressure is deemed ineffective or a blatant hindrance to US interests. This was made clear by the renewed US strikes on Sanaa on 15 March, which sought to apply pressure on Ansarallah for its unwavering support for Gaza through targeted operations against Israeli vessels in regional waters – and on Iran by extension, for its long-standing support for the Yemeni front.
But this maneuver ignored three hard realities: that Ansarallah had remained steadfast throughout 15 months of US-led pressure; that the strikes could derail backchannel efforts with Iran; and that they might provoke further retaliatory escalation – precisely what happened.
The USS Harry S. Truman vessel has since become a repeated target of Yemeni missiles, while Israel’s Ben Gurion airport was twice struck as the Yemeni Armed Forces (YAF) vowed continued operations until the war on Gaza ends.
Trump may soon learn that airstrikes will not dislodge the Yemeni resistance, nor compel Iran to the table, but may in fact entrench opposition and close avenues for diplomacy.
The same logic applies to Gaza. Despite initial moves to end the war, against Israeli objections, Trump later sanctioned its resumption. This, despite the fact that after 15 months of relentless assault, the occupation state failed to achieve even its primary objective: dismantling Gaza’s resistance.
Numbers have been replenished. The hostage exchanges, once deployed as propaganda, have instead humanized the resistance. Trump’s decision to abandon ceasefire negotiations may ultimately backfire, as Tel Aviv fails to gain leverage and Washington is left to reckon with the immovability of the resistance as a permanent actor in any future settlement.
‘Do you own a suit?’: The fate of proxies and allies
When Zelensky was scolded in the Oval Office, it was not merely personal – it was a warning to other US allies to pull their own weight and prove their usefulness to US interests. Proxies will remain proxies, and they are expected to perform. Overreach will not be tolerated.
The message was not only for Kiev. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government should take note. Despite the apparent strength of the Trump–Israel alliance – diplomatic cover, sustained arms flows – Trump has already taken decisions independent of Israeli pressure.
Ultimately, it was Trump who forced a stop to the Gaza war at the behest of the Israeli government in a matter of months – a move which the Biden administration showed little interest in for over a year. He also abruptly ended the first phase of the Gaza war and conducted direct negotiations with Hamas to secure American hostages, triggering Israeli media outrage.
Trump’s foreign policy, for all its support of Israel, places American solutions first. That unpredictability now leaves Tel Aviv unable to rely on the blanket guarantees it once enjoyed.
Across West Asia and North Africa, Trump’s posture is clear: regional actors must step up or risk irrelevance. Arab states, long dependent on US power and willing to tolerate American overreach in exchange for protection, are now being told to contribute meaningfully.
Egypt only took the lead in Gaza’s reconstruction after Trump floated – and then retracted – a provocative plan to resettle Gazans in Egypt and Jordan. The subtext was blunt: get dressed, or be dismissed.
This forced recalibration could either sow instability among fragile states or usher in deeper regional cooperation, especially among those aligning against US primacy. With US Special Envoy to West Asia Steve Witkoff still pushing regional normalization as the silver bullet for Israeli security, these countries are left to choose between deeper dependence or newfound assertiveness.
Coercive strategies and missed opportunities
A foreign policy built on economic leverage and restraint from endless war could, in theory, allow Trump to forge partnerships with countries aligned with Russia – if he could present the US as a trustworthy power. That, however, remains a tall order for a president known for capricious decision-making.
His stance on Iran is illustrative. While occasionally signaling openness to nuclear negotiations, Trump’s concurrent push for “maximum pressure” sanctions backfired. In response, reformist Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian – otherwise inclined toward diplomacy – slammed the door:
“We will die with dignity, but we will not live in disgrace. We will sit down and talk if negotiations are conducted respectfully and based on mutual interests. However, the language of threats and force is absolutely unacceptable to us.”
This sentiment was echoed by Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who emphasized on Thursday that Tehran will not enter direct talks with the US unless negotiations are free from coercion and pressure. This was later underscored by a tripartite meeting between Iran, Russia, and China, who jointly condemned US sanctions as unlawful.
Trump has inadvertently unified Iran’s reformists and hardliners by failing to offer a credible diplomatic path. Worse still, at least for the US, he is pushing Tehran ever closer to Moscow and Beijing – undermining his own leverage in a region already slipping beyond Washington’s grasp.
Gambling on multipolarity
Trump's tumultuous foreign policy decisions risk alienating allies and emboldening old rivalries, which may have adverse effects on his quest to prepare the US to maintain its hegemonic status in an ever-changing world.
Rather than modernizing American dominance, he may be hastening its erosion – squandering openings for negotiation, alienating traditional allies, and forcing independent states to forge new pacts. Europe’s renewed overtures to Turkiye’s EU membership are one such example, a signal that even Washington’s closest allies are hedging against an unstable American hand.
If Trump wishes to lead in a multipolar world, he will need more than unpredictability and brute leverage. The path he has chosen may demand a level of strategic foresight and diplomatic nuance that he remains fundamentally unwilling – or unable – to deliver.
No comments:
Post a Comment