As the German marshal Von Moltke observed over two centuries ago: “No plan survives its first contact with the reality of the battlefield,” the NSS today did not survive its first contact with the reality of American foreign policy.
When the Trump administration released its National Security Strategy (NSS) last year, an avalanche of analyses and headlines followed, explaining its radical implications for American foreign policy and the world. Personally, I concluded in one of my columns that no written document or American bureaucratic process could contain Trump’s personal, chaotic, and opportunistic impulses, and therefore suggested at the time that the best thing to do was, for the first time, simply ignore the NSS.
Less than a hundred days have passed and Trump has already undermined the foundations of the National Security Strategy. The main trigger was his decision to attack Iran.
First, as part of the National Security Strategy (NSS), the Trump administration condemned previous administrations that aimed for “regime change” and advocated for an entirely new approach: flexible realism. This new approach implied, among other things, “good relations with the nations of the world without imposing democratic changes or other social transformations that deviate from their traditions and history.” With the attack on Iran, Trump rejected the flexible realism of the MAGA movement and returned to the traditional American policy of regime change. Commenting on the goals in Iran, Trump declared: “Regime change is the best thing that can happen”, and directly addressing the Iranian people, he called for regime change in Iran and embracing liberal democracy. Trump thus joined the traditional American elite, which has often viewed foreign policy as a moral crusade to promote American values in the world, even if it involves regime change.
Second, under the National Security Strategy (NSS), the Trump administration condemned the “endless wars of America” and announced to the world that from now on, it would be “America first”. To justify this new American policy, Trump referred to the “Founding Fathers” who, according to him, “clearly stated their preference for non-interference in the affairs of other countries.” However, Trump not only decided to interfere in the “affairs of other countries,” he decided to bomb them. With the attack on Iran, Trump swept aside the idea of “America first.” He returned to the traditional foundations of a proactive foreign policy and to the historical role of the United States as the “world’s policeman” – the very goal the NSS sought to avoid.
Third, one of the key goals of the National Security Strategy (NSS) was to shift America’s focus away from the Middle East and towards confrontation with major powers, particularly China. In this view, the NSS concluded that the era when the Middle East dominated American foreign policy was over. This is also why, within the NSS, the Middle East is the last priority, while Asia is the first after the Western hemisphere. By attacking Iran, Trump completely undermined the goals of the NSS, diverting attention back to the Middle East and redirecting American resources from China.
Fourth, one of the key principles of the National Security Strategy was that “economic security is essential to national security” and that, therefore, “maintaining freedom of passage in the Strait of Hormuz is a vital national interest.” By attacking Iran, Trump achieved the exact opposite.
Three conclusions can be drawn from this Trump-Iran episode. First, echoing the German marshal von Moltke who observed over two centuries ago: “No plan survives its first contact with the reality of the battlefield,” the new National Security Strategy (NSS) did not survive its first contact with the reality of American foreign policy. At the first contact with reality, the ideas of the MAGA movement collapsed. This leads us to the second conclusion: the new American foreign policy, or “America first,” never existed. It was neither a serious policy nor a strategy, but simply a campaign slogan and rhetoric. Third, the Iranian fiasco revealed the naivety and fragility of Trump’s personal approach to foreign policy, as well as the victory of the “deep state” that the MAGA movement sought to defeat. Trump’s gleeful joy over Iran demonstrated that the traditional American state apparatus remains the dominant force in Washington. When his inner circle’s efforts – led by figures like Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner – failed, Trump turned to the “deep state” for help. A few days after the start of the conflict with Iran, Trump realized that only the American military and diplomatic apparatus could prevent a total disaster in Iran. In other words, this fiasco revealed that there is no “Trumpian” foreign policy, but only traditional American foreign policy, this time dressed up as an aggressive Twitter user.
