.svg){kind=small}
Riadh Ben Sliman, former Tunisian Ambassador
The world is undergoing a tectonic shift. We are currently facing an unprecedented situation in contemporary history. The global landscape has become uncertain, unpredictable, disrupting all mechanisms that regulate international relations. For those who have closely observed the evolution of global affairs in recent decades, there is only one word to describe the current state of the world: chaos.
Chaos reigns because force is replacing law, because the drift toward violence overshadows moderation, as Albert Camus warned. Chaos, because we seek simplistic solutions to an increasingly complex world. Chaos, because irrationality finds a comfortable foothold, reinforced by a Manichean worldview that reduces everything to a battle between good and evil.
While the crises we are witnessing today may seem unprecedented, they are, in reality, the culmination of a long process of systemic decay—one whose fractures began to emerge in the aftermath of the so-called Unipolar moment, a term used for the first time by the renowned American political scientist Charles Krauthammer.
The fractures came to the fore after NATO’s war against Serbia in 1999, the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq in 2003 (both carried out without Security Council authorization) following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the financial crisis of 2008, and NATO’s intervention in Libya in 2011, which overstepped the Security Council’s mandate under Resolution 1973. Each of these events weakened the foundations of the international order established after the Second World War.
The competition between global powers for dominance has further precipitated the erosion of the international system. As major powers increasingly pursue policies that constitute a departure from established international norms, they are driving the unravelling of the very order that has governed global relations since 1945.
With the return of wars as a means of resolving conflicts, growing instability and the rise of global challenges in recent decades, some may argue that the nuclear deterrence of the Cold War era had at least the merit of maintaining a balance of power between the United States and the USSR. Indeed, this deterrence prevented direct military confrontation between the two superpowers, averting a global conflict of a massive scale.
At the same time, globalization has profoundly reshaped the international landscape, giving rise to a wide array of new actors operating within an extended and increasingly interconnected transnational space. Their ability to mobilize independently, combined with the intensification of cross-border movements and the rapid advancement of new technologies, has increased their influence on the global stage.
This multiplicity of actors coincides with the proliferation of complex global challenges: climate change, pandemics, financial crises, terrorism, migration, transnational crime etc… which are now on the top of the international agenda.
These shifting dynamics are accelerating the fragmentation of the international system which has proved to be unable to fulfil its regulatory and integrative functions.
It is within this turbulent global context that Donald Trump assumes his second presidential term, a beginning of his presidency marked not only by these existing upheavals but also by significant new developments:
Extreme nationalism is on the rise alongside economic protectionism, fuelling policies of isolationism, xenophobia, and the transformation of borders into fortresses. This is in reaction to globalism which gained ground over nationalism in the last decades. Since the mid-2010s, ethno-nationalism has been on the rise, increasingly adopting racist slogans with the resurgence of white supremacist movements.
This new era of nationalism reflects a broader shift toward a world defined by power and ideology. In this regard, Trump’s “Make America Great Again” “MAGA” and “America First” slogans capture a populist nationalist and anti globalist spirit.
The rise of Trump is not a historical anomaly or an accident of history but the result of long-standing dynamics within the United States. The true roots of Trumps foreign policy can be found in the 1950. It stems from the right wing anti communist movements of the 1950 which views American liberalism as too soft, too post national and too secular to protect the country. These views are in sharp contrast with the then liberal ideology that championed liberalism, democracy and internationalism, strongly advocated at that time by Presidents Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower and John F Kennedy in response to the perceived soviet threat.
But Trump dislikes universalistic internationalism and is not interested in Americanization as a foreign policy agenda. The defence of the international liberal order, for decades the cornerstone of US foreign policy, has no meaning for Trump. He hardly thinks about the international order or the international system as conceived by his predecessors and which marked for decades the American Foreign Policy.
He is a harsh advocate of American nationalism who pursues power profit and unilateral advantage. Even if he operates a US relative retreat from the world stage, he will continue to pursue US self interests only. Far from the idealism of his predecessors, Trump pursues policies that serve only US interests.
Neoconservative style interventionism, which involved military actions to overthrow regimes seen as hostile to the US (as they did not embrace the tenets of the International liberal order) and promote democracy (especially in “the Greater Middle East”) is not part of Trump’s foreign policy agenda. Trump does not adhere to the infamous “regime change” doctrine, nor does he follow the interventionist policies of his predecessors.
As a staunch Jeffersonian Republican, referring to the third US President, Thomas Jefferson (1801–1809), Trump views foreign interventions as reckless adventures that threaten America’s internal stability. Neither human rights violation, threats to democracy, nor the persecution of a people are in his view, sufficient justification for deploying American troops to foreign soil.
However Internally, the Neo conservatism policies which have taken shape through radical security measures such as the Patriot Act and the Homeland Security Act, after 9/11 which disproportionately target foreigners, seem to be in line with Trump anti migrants policies.
Trump’s Foreign Policy Vision
Trump’s doctrine represents a significant departure from the foreign policy that has guided the US since the end of World War II. For decades, American leadership was rooted in upholding democracy, the rule of law, and liberal values, a consensus that emerged at the end of the Second World War and underpinned US dominance.
Trump has effectively dismantled this legacy, replacing it with a doctrine driven by raw power and transactional diplomacy.
The liberal international order, a cornerstone of US foreign policy since 1945, has been undermined by Trump’s unilateralism. Unlike past presidents who conceived military and humanitarian interventions as a moral duty, Trump dismisses such justifications entirely. His focus is the pursuit of US interests, transforming them into concrete gains through a highly transactional, case by case approach that prioritizes bilateral negotiations and great-power competition.
In this vision, Pax Americana is not a framework for global stability but a revitalized power play, dictated by the politics of dominance that Trump openly champions.
While this time Trump is hardly interested in operating a complete retreat from the global stage, he remains reluctant to engage American capabilities overseas. Trump argues that the US has long borne excessive international burdens, acting too generously toward allies who have benefited from American largesse. He believes the US has long been made a sucker by the entire world.
In his view, the US is no longer enjoying the unchallenged supremacy it once held, and must avoid overextending or overstretching. Instead, it should transfer more responsibilities to other rich countries, particularly Europeans compelling them to bear a greater share of the financial burden for mutual defence thus relieving American taxpayers from paying the bill. This is the way Trump likes to squeeze allies as well as adversaries.
Trump views US foreign involvement led to costly military engagements, often with disastrous consequences for the United States. However, this does not imply that Trump will cut US military spending. On the contrary, his strategy revolves around maintaining and projecting American power. During his first term, Trump increased defence spending from $620 billion to $738 billion, accounting for 38% of global military expenditures.
While his broader policy aims to narrow the scope of US interventionism, Trump will not abandon the global dominance and leadership he seeks to restore, primarily through power, though not necessarily through direct military force. For Trump this will help preserve the superpower status of the US that he cherishes.
Military action will be reserved for serving Israel’s interests solely, hence the current military build-up in the Middle East to cater to the bellicose plans of the Prime Minister of the Zionist entity.
Trump’s unwavering support for the Zionist entity is set to intensify, particularly as his closest team appointments strengthen pro-Israeli influence within his administration. The nomination of Mike Huckabee—a Christian evangelical Zionist and staunch supporter of Israel’s far-right messianic agenda—as US Ambassador to Tel Aviv, along with the appointment of Marco Rubio, a staunch defender of Israeli interests, as Secretary of State, signal a stronger alignment with Israeli policies. Trump is close to the theology of US evangelicals in support of the Zionist entity.
In addition to adopting muscle flexing policies in the Middle East, his preferred tools of influence in the other disputes are economic pressure, sanctions, coercion, imposing trade tariffs massively and the extraterritorial application of US law. These measures will continue to erode international law and undermine global consensus on widely accepted norms.
His rule is a demonstration of force, a blend of 19th century expansionist ideology and 21st century technological ambition. His vision extends beyond geopolitical dominance to innovations such as artificial intelligence and the pursuit of space exploration and even colonization, as echoed by his ally Elon Musk’s ambition to plant the American flag on the planet Mars. His power will, in part, depend on the rise of increasingly complex systems and networks of institutional, financial, and technological giants. His team from the tech world is already shaping the policies that they think will make US power unmatched in new technologies.
Trump aspires to expand American influence into new territories. He seeks to strengthen US global supremacy and leadership, through military and economic power. His vision of imperialism is a hybrid one, an unmatched American dominance that projects its power worldwide, while still maintaining a measured form of isolationism or in another word a relative retreat. His ultimate goal is to shape this dominance in a way that serves, first and foremost, the sole interests of the United States.
To achieve these strategic objectives, Trump adopts the «big stick” diplomacy, asserting American strength while carefully calibrating its level of engagement. This engagement, however, is designed to serve only America, with one notable exception: the Zionist entity. This explains his aggressive stance toward Yemen and his current threats against Iran.
Trump does not engage with issues in their complexity but instead approaches them through a simplistic, transactional lens. Moreover, Trump shapes his policies based on instincts and impulses. This approach disregards history, culture, legitimacy, and diplomatic alliances in favour of immediate, often short-term, economic gains. Thus, his proposal to deport the Palestinian population of Gaza and transform the territory into a luxurious coastal enclave looking like a French Riviera.
Not only this proposal blatantly violates international law, which prohibits forced transfers of population and ethnic cleansing, but it also demonstrates the speculative greed of unrestrained capitalism. Despite the lessons of the 2008 subprime crisis, this model continues to prioritize profit over human dignity, deepening the moral decay in certain areas of the globe.
This episode reveals a fundamental clash of worldviews: while some cultures recognize the dignity and legitimate rights of a people struggling for his legitimate national rights, others reduce entire populations to mere economic assets, treating dispossession as a real estate opportunity.
The China Dilemma: Containment or Management?
Will Trump seek to contain China as an adversary or manage its rise while undermining its ascent as a fierce rival? His strategy appears to be a blend of both. Two key figures in his administration will shape future Chinese-American relations: Elon Musk, whose business empire has a strong foothold in China, and Marco Rubio, known for his staunch opposition to Beijing, particularly in military and trade matters.
Before addressing the Chinese challenge, however, Trump aims to settle ongoing global conflicts, particularly in Ukraine. His urgency in resolving the Ukrainian war stems from his broader strategic goal: fostering an accelerated rapprochement with Russia to redeploy US power in front of what he sees as the greater long term threat: China.
It is also clear that Trump seeks in pursuing his policies towards China, to decoupling Beijing from Moscow.
Trump’s resolve to settle the Ukrainian conflict, particularly through an accelerated rapprochement with Russia, is a calculated move within his broader strategy of reshaping the global agenda in line with US national interests. This rapprochement with Vladimir Putin reflects Trump’s tendency of engaging with strong, unconstrained leaders, regardless of whether their vision aligns with traditional US. foreign policy goals. He openly expresses his admiration for those who wield power, viewing them as potential partners rather than adversaries.
He prefers individuals over governments. Personal relationships over alliances and power politics are the sole attributes that count in his mind.
That explains why he sees Russia and China as the strongest states on the planet. These are the only nations that he takes seriously and demonstrates caution towards Europe as he considers it weak with no potential for projecting power.
A New Rift in Transatlantic Relations
The shifting dynamics of American foreign policy were very much obvious at the Munich Security Conference, held from February 14 to 16, 2025, in the Bavarian capital. The conference, a long-standing forum for discussing global security, became the scene of a rupture in transatlantic relations, once the cornerstone of the international system since 1945.
European allies found themselves the target of fierce criticism from the US delegation. Vice President J.D. Vance was adamant to say:
“The greatest threat to Europe is neither Russia nor China, but rather Europe’s retreat from its most fundamental values, values it once shared with the United States.”
These developments illustrate that Washington is no longer interested in maintaining the traditional transatlantic partnership as a cornerstone of its global strategy. Instead, Trump’s America is pivoting toward a transactional, interest driven approach, one that prioritizes immediate strategic gains over long standing alliances. With regard to the future of European security, European countries are urged to reassess their approach, independently of the United States and its traditional security guarantees.
President Trump and Russian President Putin rapprochement signals a mutual readiness to settle the Ukrainian conflict. Europe is entirely excluded from the process although it is not yet ruled out that it may have a role in the post-negotiations, including providing aid, offering security guarantees, potentially deploying troops, and assuming a significant financial responsibility.
To make use of his negotiating skills and satisfy his electoral base, an essential factor in Trump’s actions, the White House tenant is focusing on Ukraine’s vast subsoil resources, rich in rare metals such as titanium, lithium, graphite, and uranium. Trump is working to reach a deal in which Ukraine grants the US permission to exploit 50% of these resources, as a reimbursement for the $500 billion (an inflated figure according to European estimates) that the US has provided to Ukraine during the conflict.
As part of the deal, Russia would have sanctions lifted and retain control of Crimea and the occupied Donbass region, thereby securing its access to the Black Sea. Ukraine, in return, would receive some form of European protection, with Europe bearing the financial burden of this protection.
Trump’s current approach to the Ukrainian issue, along with his remarks about reclaiming the Panama Canal (a concession made by the US in 1977 under Carter Presidency), his interest in acquiring Greenland, his ambitions regarding Canada, and his imposition of huge tariffs, all signal a return to 19th-century geopolitics.
These statements reveal a strong preference for focusing primarily on the Western Hemisphere, a stance commonly associated with the notion that the United States should assert dominance in its own neighbourhood. Trump seems disinterested in regions remote from this area, such as Taiwan, with the exception of the Zionist entity, which he regards as a crucial US ally in the Middle East.
His strategy of expanding American influence in the Western Hemisphere is rooted in historical US policy.
Trump seems to be influenced by the 19th-century American president, William McKinley, who sought to expand the territorial size of the US by occupying the Philippines, Cuba, Hawaii, Guam and Puerto Rico. He combined his territorial expansion with using tariffs that he viewed as a road to prosperity.
Also in 1823, President James Monroe declared the Western Hemisphere an area not accessible to European colonization, and in the late 19th century, his doctrine was used to justify US territorial expansion.
Trump’s foreign policy today is similarly driven by a desire for territorial expansion, with a focus on acquiring global resources essential for maintaining American economic supremacy and dynamism.
This explains Trump’s desire to reclaim control over the Panama Canal, a critical maritime route for American trade, through which the majority of US cargo passes. Under his leadership, the US will not tolerate a Chinese company managing the canal, as it could pose a national security threat.
The United States has long held ambitions to absorb Canada, a dream dating back to President Thomas Jefferson, who predicted that “the acquisition of Canada will be only a matter of time.” However, this notion was abandoned in 1846, due in part to the influence of the British Empire and the risk of war with Mexico. Today, revisiting this idea, particularly the notion of making Canada the 51st state could destabilize the region, given the strong attachment of Canadians to their national identity and sovereignty.
As for Greenland, the US has long considered acquiring it. In 1867, President Andrew Johnson launched the idea when the US purchased Alaska, and in 1946, President Harry Truman made a similar secret proposal underlying the island’s strategic importance. Today, as the Arctic ice cap melts due to climate change, Greenland’s geostrategic significance has grown. The emerging northern waterway and its abundant reserves of critical minerals needed for clean energy further strengthen its strategic value.
Trump’s worldview is deeply Thucydidean, echoing the idea that “the strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must.”
Also, Trump’s foreign policy reflects a Hobbesian worldview, one that emphasizes absolute sovereignty, unconstrained by international norms. This vision disrupts the global order and shifts the focus of American interests to untapped territories and resources, potentially at the expense of Europe, which, despite its ongoing historical role, seems increasingly marginalized in Trump’s grand strategy.
As a result, geopolitics is being replaced by geo-economics, turning the world into a battleground where the economy is seen as a tool of power rather than an open market for exchange, as it was during the era of globalization. Trump is not hardline isolationist. He admits the interdependence and dynamics created by globalization but seeks to address them in a way that prioritizes his country’s interests.
His approach clearly marks a departure from multilateralism and challenges the global balance established by President Franklin Roosevelt in the United Nations Charter, which aimed to reconcile the global engagement of the United States with multilateralism.
That approach, of course, undermines the role of multilateralism and collective security in international affairs. But, for Trump, only unilateralism and transactional deal-making truly matter. So, for him, the UN is essentially a sideline organization, except for its ability to adopt sanctions.
Trump is also considering reassessing every single international treaty that the US has ever signed with the view to determining whether the accords are in his opinion, anti-American or do serve American interests.
Trump operates outside any framework for regulating state behaviour and shows a blatant disregard for the existence of international norms governing states. Such behaviour is unprecedented in modern history. He pursues an unconventional foreign policy.
In the legal order set up after World War II, embodied in the Charter, and supported by the United States, even when states violated international law, they always sought to use legal arguments to show that, at least on the surface, they were acting in accordance with international law.
But today Trump does not take into account the very existence of an international legal system based on both conventional and customary rules, procedures, and institutions, with the United Nations and its Charter at the forefront. The Charter forms the foundation of International law and includes fundamental principles such as the sovereign equality of states, the prohibition of the use of force, the duty of peaceful cooperation, the right of peoples to self-determination, and respect for fundamental freedoms etc….
In a press conference, when asked by a journalist whether he would assure the world that he would not use military or economic coercion to attempt to control the Panama Canal or Greenland, Trump replied, “No, I cannot assure you of anything on those two points.”
What is clear is that Trump will certainly give priority to his negotiating skills to achieve his goals while brandishing at the same time his “hard stick diplomacy”.
Riadh Ben Sliman, former Tunisian Ambassador