A dramatic reversal is currently unfolding before our eyes. The legendary maxim of Prussian military theorist Carl von Clausewitz from about 200 years ago, which long ago became axiomatic, that war is merely the continuation of politics by other means, is being supplanted by a radically different worldview, exemplified in both thought and action by US President Donald Trump.
This new approach, diametrically opposed to Clausewitz's doctrine, holds that the use of violence, or the threat thereof through a forceful strategy of sabre-rattling, gunboat diplomacy, blunt threats, pressure tactics and sanctions, is precisely what should advance the 47th president's overarching global vision: the resolution and regulation of international conflicts, and the establishment of a stable global order. All this stems from the projection of American military might and resolve in confronting any actor that challenges the foundations of the international system and thus directly threatens US national security.
Gunboat diplomacy
Contrary to the prevailing view that Trump's actions are little more than a haphazard stream of impulsive improvisations, a deeper analysis of his approach to the host of wars and crises darkening today's global horizon reveals a systematic method. This method is evident in his painful strikes on Houthi positions and installations, his support for Israel's war against Hamas (along with sharp threats toward the terrorist organization if it refuses a ceasefire and the return of Israeli hostages from Gaza's tunnels), and his sweeping military actions, including retaliatory strikes, against Iran's proxies in Iraq and Syria. It is also present in his harsh rhetoric and pressure on Ukraine (though not on Russia) to impose a humiliating ceasefire.
The Pentagon's current military focus is on Yemen, which sharply encapsulates the core of the White House's "operational code." The escalation of attacks by the Houthis, proxies of Tehran fed from its hand, is now seen in Washington as the most immediate and serious threat to American (and Israeli) security, economic, and strategic interests. Once a pirate organization that terrorized shipping in the Bab al-Mandeb Strait and extorted protection payments from its victims, the Houthis have, with Iranian backing, become a brazen disruptor of one of the world's most critical trade routes. Their actions affect shipments of raw materials, oil and goods, and increasingly threaten freedom of navigation in both the Arabian and Red Seas.
The Houthis: An immediate threat
By attacking commercial vessels, and attempting to directly strike Israel, the Iranian proxy is severely harming the steady flow of goods, energy resources and supplies along a vital corridor connecting Asia to the Mediterranean via the Suez Canal, and from there to Europe and the Americas. There is no doubt that the American president, who is acutely sensitive to tariff issues on essential goods, cannot remain indifferent to the Houthis' unsustainable aggression. The alternative route, which bypasses Houthi-controlled waters by circling the African continent and adds at least two weeks to each journey westward, significantly inflates shipping costs and directly impacts the US economy.
All the strands connecting the Houthi front, the Gaza front, and US military flexing in Syria and Iraq lead straight to the heart of the matter: the ayatollah regime in Iran. And herein lies the essence of Trump's strategy. Through intense military pressure on all of Tehran's proxies, especially in light of Iran's deep military and economic decline following the collapse or retreat of some of its key allies (chiefly Hezbollah and Hamas, not to mention the downfall of Bashar Assad's regime, a loyal Iranian partner), the White House hopes to soften Iran's stance on its nuclear program and push it toward a better deal, distancing it significantly from acquiring a bomb. This strategy adds a new tool to Trump's diplomatic arsenal: the Russian factor.
Softening Iran's position?
As a seasoned businessman whose worldview is rooted in barter, Trump has already prepared what he sees as a compelling incentive for Moscow to enact this dramatic pivot: near-total support for President Vladimir Putin's positions regarding the terms of ending the war in Ukraine. Kyiv may be abandoned to its fate, but in Trump's view, this would pave the way for stabilizing the entire Middle East sub-system by uprooting Iran's revolutionary and subversive claws, and by neutralizing, or at least distancing, the nuclear threat it now seems so close to achieving. This would, in turn, secure Israel's existence and safety once and for all, as reflected in Trump and Putin's recent phone call.
The broader implication is the accelerated formation of a new global order between Washington and Moscow. However, this emerging bipolar world is likely to be a far cry from the tense, crisis-ridden model of the Cold War era.
What remains to be seen is whether this anti-Clausewitzian vision of political settlements, birthed through sabre-rattling or the use of direct or indirect military force against the emissaries of the axis of evil, will achieve its primary goal vis-à-vis Iran. And simultaneously, whether it will help bring about a swift end to the ongoing fighting in Gaza and lead to an agreement for the release of hostages who have been languishing for 18 months in Gaza's tunnels of torment.
