Since the launch of his campaign against Iran, it is safe to say that Donald Trump has intensified his verbal attacks. He has even alienated some of his original supporters within his own camp. And what if the president’s outbursts were more than that? This is the thesis of Gregory A. Daddis, a history professor at Texas A&M University, who, in an article published in Foreign Policy, explains how the billionaire president’s acerbic rhetoric would be “counterproductive”, including in terms of his foreign policy, making popular support more difficult. A keen observer of American politics, this specialist paints a picture of a frustrated president, blinded by the belief that after the success of his Venezuela enterprise, the Iranian issue would have a similar outcome. To the point where he can only rely on words. Interview.
L’Express: You describe Donald Trump’s violent rhetoric as “counterproductive,” especially in terms of his foreign policy. Why is that?
Gregory Daddis: In general, any nation that goes to war faces a challenge to achieve its goals: projecting its military power. However, under the leadership of Donald Trump, the United States, which has engaged in a war in the Middle East, faces two problems that complicate this ambition. The most obvious: his administration has been too erratic. Both the American public and the Iranian leaders are completely confused about what Trump is trying to achieve with his military intervention. Initially focusing on the nuclear issue, then on oil, then on regime change… In short, Trump’s discourse is not coherent enough for Americans to understand and truly support his policy.
