US President Donald Trump’s second term has been marked by the abduction of leftist Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, the joint US-Israeli attack on Iran that killed hundreds of the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei, and new threats against other leaders from Latin America to Europe.
The policy tests alliances, legal norms, and the idea that shocking actions abroad have predictable consequences at home. At its core is a message President Trump repeats in a variety of ways. “We can reach you, but if you don’t do what we want, we may not be able to protect you.”
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Trump has spoken directly to foreign leaders, promising swift punishment or personal favors, making himself the only US president to “take the gloves off.”
While his supporters credit him with strength and candor, critics highlight threats and deals aimed at domestic politics as well as foreign capital.
A doctrine built around the enemy
President Trump’s decision to attack Iran has been described as “the biggest foreign policy gamble of his presidency,” with analysts saying he has pivoted from “quick, limited operations like last month’s lightning strike against Venezuela” to a potentially more protracted conflict that is already turning into a broader regional war.
His doctrine is rooted in identifying adversaries such as Iran, China, Russia, and North Korea, along with Venezuela, Cuba, some Latin American leaders, and groups such as drug cartels, Hezbollah, and Hamas.
Analysts at the Atlantic Council say President Trump’s national security strategy “intensifies great power competition with China and Russia while positioning Iran and North Korea as rogue regimes,” creating an organizational chart of enemies that is reflected in his rhetoric and operations.
The Foreign Policy Institute described President Trump’s strategy as a “highly transactional document,” arguing that security guarantees and pressure on adversaries are built around what other countries will “pay” or make concessions to the United States.
Iran and the escalation of regional wars
The Pentagon dubbed the Iran operation “Operation Grand Fury,” and President Trump claimed the United States “didn’t start this war” but intended to end it, a claim rejected by Iran’s foreign minister in an interview with Al Jazeera.
President Trump said the US military would “dismantle” much of Iran’s military, deny Iran its nuclear arsenal and “give the Iranian people an opportunity to overthrow their rulers.” According to some media reports, he privately claimed that Iran “has missiles that could soon attack the United States,” although intelligence assessments do not support this.
Analysts say President Trump hopes the U.S. and Israeli strikes will spark a popular uprising to oust Iran’s rulers, even though outside air power has never directly achieved regime change without ground forces. The Atlantic Council has warned that an attack on Iran risks drawing the United States into a broader regional war “with no clear outcome.”
The Royal United Services Institute said Washington would be under intense pressure to expand Operation Epic Fury into a larger military operation if Iran’s retaliation resulted in significant U.S. casualties.
Meanwhile, hawks in Washington see an opportunity. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies report said an attack on Iran provides “a historic opportunity to help collapse the Islamic Republic.”
President Trump told US media that the military operation could last “four weeks or less” depending on how Iran and its allies respond, but the defense secretary acknowledged it could be shorter or longer.
Within days of Saturday’s attack on Iran, the war spread across the region, with Israel announcing on Tuesday that it had launched a ground operation in Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iranian retaliatory attacks have targeted not only U.S. assets but also civilian infrastructure in the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, and other Gulf states.
This is exactly the kind of escalation that experts were warning about. The attack, disguised as targeting the head of Iran’s leadership, also involved a weakened Hezbollah and even Lebanese civilians, reinforcing the perception that the United States is willing to put the entire region at risk to prove it can overthrow a regime with one man.
Just as he captured President Maduro in Venezuela in a raid on a CIA tip in Caracas, this episode emboldens similar ideas elsewhere, analysts say.
“Troublesome precedent”
The Caracas attack came on the back of a “maximum pressure” campaign that included sanctions, criminal cases and asset seizures in high-profile operations. Maduro’s abduction gave the United States significant control over Venezuela’s vast oil reserves.
The Center for Strategic and International Studies called the Maduro operation “a military victory without a viable endgame,” arguing that while the president’s escape was a tactical success, the structural factors of the Venezuelan crisis still exist.
The Brookings analysis warns that the attack “sets a troubling precedent for U.S.-led regime change by special forces,” suggesting other Latin American leaders may see it as a potential U.S. “template” rather than a one-off.
As in Colombia, Trump called President Gustavo Petro a “sick man,” hinted at a Venezuela-like intervention that “sounds good to me,” and warned Petro to “watch his attitude.”
In January, Petro said the United States was behaving like an empire that treats Latin American governments as vassals, warning that the United States was at risk of becoming “isolated from the rest of the world” from “world domination.”
Killing or abducting leaders or public figures of other countries is a violation of international law. Experts say President Trump’s expansion of the “targeted killing” principle erodes the taboo on assassinating political leaders and makes reciprocity more realistic.
Protection as a transaction
President Trump’s attitude towards allies is less active, but just as outspoken.
President Trump once boasted that he told NATO members, “You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent…No, I won’t protect you. In fact, I’ll encourage[Russia]to do whatever they want.”
The comments sparked alarm in European capitals and prompted what analysts described as an effort to “counter-Trump” NATO by increasing defense spending and increasing political engagement.
The European Council on Foreign Relations claims that Trump is “exporting MAGA to Europe” and turning NATO into a “protection racket in name only”, with security guarantees conditional on allies’ political and financial alignment.
A declassified 2019 White House memo provides the clearest example of how President Trump’s transactional logic extends to his partners. The memo shows that Trump responded to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s request for more weapons.
“But do us a favor,” Trump is said to have said before asking Zelensky to investigate former US President Joe Biden and his son, a conversation that led to Trump’s first impeachment.
Who will be next?
The Maduro attack, the Iranian attack, the threat to Petro, and the pressure on NATO all suggest who could be next. Iranian-aligned groups in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon; Or the small European country branded “delinquent” by President Trump.
Trump’s advisers have urged him to focus on the domestic economy and warned that a prolonged conflict with Iran could alienate some of Trump’s “America First” base, which is skeptical of endless wars, according to US media reports.
Meanwhile, President Trump’s supporters point to increased NATO spending, attacks on Maduro, and attacks on Iran as evidence that he is “walking the talk.” Some argue that even if there is no regime change, discrediting Iran’s nuclear program would be seen as a victory for President Trump.
But critics fear that some of Trump’s claims against Iran are unsupported by the intelligence community and that the Iran operation could escalate into the largest U.S. military operation since the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
A key test for Mr. Trump in the coming days will be whether American power can produce lasting results without headwinds in Iran, Lebanon, Latin America, and within the United States.
