The Blessings of US’ Aggressive Foreign Policy under Trump

After Donald Trump’s upset victory that came as a shock to the whole world, all observers are now eyeing candidates for decision-making institutions. Some analysts are concerned that an aggressive itinerary on US foreign policy may be back on track. That is, in comparison with the Obama administration at least, one should expect Trump’s America to use more aggressive methods in dealing with foreign policy issues. Should this worry Iran? It would have been better for the Islamic Republic to be able to establish more amicable ties with the US, but for the time being, where hostility remains between the two countries, an aggressive superpower that raises the possibility of war is more adaptable to Iran’s national interests. The United States aggressive approaches will:

1.  Induce fear of the superpower’s intentions among big powers, impelling them to seek balancing leverages. The less war-inclined the superpower, the more assured the other powers and the less strict they will be geopolitically. In such circumstances, they would prefer to enjoy the bright side of the status quo. However, if China, Russia and the EU, feel intimidated by US’ unilateral measures, they would prepare themselves for strategic cooperation or undermining the US’ military apparatus. Hence, Iran will find its natural defensive shield in the global geostrategic hierarchy.

2. Prevent any power vacuum or aggravating competition among countries that are neither capable nor responsible to control the situation. United States’ withdrawal from regions previously accustomed to US’ intervention will jumpstart efforts for domination in a space void of power. In addition, US’ allies, who have maintained their security relying on US military forces, will inevitably try to guarantee their security on their own. This will in trun frighten their regional rivals, and will fuel destructive regional competitions. An aggressive interventionist tendency could eliminate these possibilities.

3. Make it more difficult for the superpower to establish consensus in order to advance its goals against weaker countries because big powers will be concerned that the superpower’s success in doing so will combine with its aggressive nature of the foreign policy, in turn leading to unfavorable measures that transfigure power balance in global levels. From their viewpoint, a wiser option will still be obstructing and controlling the consequences of America’s aggressive tendencies.

4. Will increase caution over likely miscalculations, particularly if, like in our age, the dismantling of the status quo in the world order is overwhelmingly viewed as unfavorable by other countries. Avoiding involvement in big wars is a powerful incentive to adopt caution and abstain from aggressive measures.

5. Will reinforce the tendency to maintain the status quo even within the territory of the superpower itself, since all the big powers fear that they may be relegated to a lower status as a consequence of a likely major war. This logic will reduce adventurism among big powers and boost stability.

6. Will shrink ‘grey zones’ of conflicts. With an aggressive superpower that is willing to use military forces, fewer of such zones will remain which could magnet proxy wars.

7. Will improve respect for deterrence in a militarized global system. Every competitor should be alarmed by the prospect of being the next in line or exposed to the threat of likely wars. Once consolidated, deterrence will reinforce stability and security.

8. Lessen the rivals’ trust in the credibility of US’ promises. It is simply because the superpower’s powerful competitors, aware of its capabilities and aggressive motivations, should think of the day Washington violates its commitments and resort to force in persuading its rivals. Thus, it is wiser for these countries not to trust US’ promises.

9. Weaken the reliance and obedience of US allies because they should be worried to be dragged into wars that not only have no benefits for them, but also could impose heavy costs on them.

10. Increase expenditure in foreign policy, hence less resources to renovate US’ domestic infrastructures. Its mid-term consequence will be the accelerated exhaustion of US’ domestic resources of power.

11. Reduce trust in US’ leadership in the global system and encourage efforts to architect a new global system, more in line with the multipolar world, less dependent on the United States.

12. Deteriorate domestic differences within the US, which will in turn lead to the emergence of new equilibriums within.

13. Increase the possibility that the US falls prey to costly and flawed decisions. In a state of zero-sum perpetual hostility between Iran and the US, i.e. while the US remains Iran’s greatest national security threat, whatever is unfavorable for the US is favorable for Iran.

14. Reinforce anti-American sensations globally and more particularly in the Muslim World. This will mobilize forces in line with the interests of United States’ enemies that could target its vital interests without US’ rival having to pay the costs.

15. Gradually weaken the leverage of economic sanctions, a constituent of multilateral diplomacy. Big powers have been complying with the US’ sanctions regimes in the hope to reduce the likelihood of wars. If the US foreign policy becomes so entangled in an aggressive, unilateral approach that sanctions fail to prevent use of force, even US’ allies will prefer to move towards balance in the opposite direction instead of accompanying it.

As history testifies, George W. Bush’s aggressive foreign policy not only failed to give the United State the superiority it desired, but also served as the beginning of an end to international monopoly. It even deepened the rift between the country and its European allies on the one hand and led to formation of a new front in Eurasia including China, Russia, and Iran on the other hand. It was after such failures that the United States’ authority reached its lowest since the Second World War while US’ debts skyrocketed beyond its GDP. It was in the same era that an unprecedented divide dominated US’ domestic scene, adding to the confusions of the US society. If Iran could skillfully avoid its victimization in the course of US’ aggressive foreign policy, it will still be able to pursue major interests in Trump’s America.

* This article was originally published in Khabar Online. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Iranian Diplomacy's editorial policy