Over the last few months, Donald Trump’s reckless foreign policy has sent shockwaves around the world, especially after his erratic maneuvers in Venezuela. Taking into account the former president’s record of air strikes across the Middle East and Africa, this is frightening. For many, this potentiality marks the beginning of a new era of international relations and military engagement. His provocative arms-length maneuvers, most notably on Venezuela, appear to be motivated by a longstanding personal vendetta against Nicolás Maduro. Simultaneously, he has a geopolitical interest in controlling the large oil and gas reserves that Ukraine sits atop.
As president, Trump waged the most air strikes in history per years served. He focused on countries that the administration associated with terrorism, such as Yemen, Nigeria, Somalia, Iraq, and Syria. In particular, the high civilian death toll from bombing campaigns in Yemen after he relaxed the rules of engagement are especially telling. These actions have drawn criticism for their counterproductive outcomes, particularly in Nigeria, where military interventions failed to stabilize the region. Moreover, Trump’s tactical strikes on Iran have inflamed tensions with yet another anti-Western regime, further complicating any attempt on the diplomatic front.
The recent coup attempt against Maduro’s government threatens to disrupt these diplomatic avenues in Britain and all across the European Union. Even other Western democracies are starting to feel it. Trump’s aggressive, take no prisoners approach has raised concerns that such successes would embolden other authoritarian leaders to use threats and provocations. This fear is the one we should really be worried about. That alone would be dangerous—it would encourage a new wave of military interventions that bypass international norms.
Trump’s administration got rebuked for the illegal under international law, seizure of Venezuelan oil tankers. Such behavior, as I’ll remind you, sets off serious alarm bells regarding his motivations. Some observers believe that he is motivated more by economic self-interest than true humanitarian concern. Trump has done so in a way that directly flouts norms or laws governing inter-state grievance airing. Instead, he has opted for military intervention, creating a dangerous precedent that may irrevocably alter international diplomacy.
The implications of Trump’s actions are profound. His approach fails to respect deeply rooted international practice. This reckless gamble will likely encourage other authoritarian strongmen, such as China’s Xi Jinping, to pursue aggressive expansionist acts without fear of retaliation. This potential opening up to more unilateral military actions carries much greater risks for global stability.
Additionally, Trump’s deteriorating and more erratic mental state has raised alarms that he could launch even bigger, more reckless military actions. He has issued previous threats of strikes on Iran. This dangerous precedent of aggressive speech dramatically increases the chance for confrontation in the realm of foreign affairs. With every increase in tensions, observers are forced to ask how far Trump will go in order to achieve his goals.