Donald Trump’s presidency is characterized by a willingness to bypass international norms and legal constraints, yielding results unattainable through traditional diplomacy.
Trump as a Disruptor of the International System
President Trump consistently acts outside established legal frameworks, eschewing UN approval and broad international coalitions, often struggling even to secure legal justification within his own political system.
The attempted legal justification for the attempted capture of a Venezuelan dictator, carried out by federal officials with military support, exemplifies this approach, framing it as not an act of aggression against a foreign state.
Critics and Supporters: Two Views of Trump’s Methods
Opponents criticize Trump’s actions as a dangerous use of force that undermines the fragile balance of the international system and risks escalating conflict, portraying him as a destabilizing force.
Conversely, supporters view Trump as decisively addressing systemic issues that traditional methods have failed to resolve, comparing him to someone “cutting an abscess.”
The Iranian Nuclear Program: A Case Study
The Iranian nuclear program, with its clear intent to develop a nuclear weapon, serves as a prime example of this perspective.
While Western countries initially pursued appeasement through the JCPOA agreement, Trump withdrew from the deal in 2018, imposed sanctions, and subsequently authorized bombings of Iranian enrichment facilities in 2025 and 2026, aiming to deprive Iran of enriched uranium resources.
Currently, Iran possesses enough enriched uranium for approximately 20 nuclear warheads and the means to deliver them, posing a threat not only to Israel but also to European countries.
Beyond Iran: Venezuela and Cuba
Trump has also pursued a similar approach in the Western Hemisphere, removing the president of Venezuela and taking control of its oil resources, thereby cutting off funding to organizations like Hezbollah and crippling the Cuban economy.
This strategy has led to economic hardship in Cuba, prompting concessions such as the release of over 2,000 prisoners.
Obama vs. Trump: Two Models of Foreign Policy
Trump’s actions in Iran, while illegal under international law, are seen by some as achieving positive outcomes that may not be attainable through adherence to established international norms.
The experience with North Korea, where efforts to halt its nuclear program failed, suggests that supporting Trump’s unlawful actions may paradoxically be in the best interest of international security.
The Limits of Unilateral Action
Despite the successes, there is a risk of overestimating the effectiveness and legitimacy of unilateral action, as no single nation can indefinitely serve as both prosecutor and judge.
While Trump’s approach may be effective in certain situations, other countries should engage with the United States while clearly defining boundaries to mitigate the risk of unchecked power.
Like the character “Dirty Harry,” Trump excels at problem-solving and confronting criminals, but effective governance requires more than just the ability to use force.