President Donald Trump‘s strategy toward Iran raises questions about his grip on reality. Each claim of impending peace, followed by further military engagement, has led to allegations that the president may be a madman. Like President Richard Nixon before him, however, it is possible that far from being insane, Trump is simply embracing the madman theory. This is an extreme form of coercive bargaining, adopted by a sane leader who feigns irrationality to create the impression of insanity in the mind of an opponent. The leader then threatens disproportionate force to gain a favorable outcome. What Nixon once did selectively and in secret, Trump does openly and regularly.
As I explain in my new book, US Grand Strategy and the Madman Theory, its potential use as a component of foreign policy is a highly contentious proposition. After all, it deliberately undermines long-standing diplomatic practices with the use of provocative action.
Recommended Stories
But it has also produced results. Trump’s embrace of the madman theory during his first term led to the establishment of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement as a replacement for NAFTA, renegotiated trade deals with Japan and South Korea, and increased defense spending from NATO allies. This has continued in his second term, as Trump continues to challenge conventional wisdom in his attempt to alter the status quo and instigate sweeping change on an abridged timescale. His willingness to repeatedly engage in what the White House terms “purposeful strategic ambiguity” ensures no one can say for certain that Trump will not follow through on his pledges, no matter how outlandish they appear.
Trump certainly has followed through on threats to withdraw from international alliances, to implement sweeping tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, and to withhold support from Ukraine in exchange for access to rare earth minerals. The world has repeatedly assumed that Trump was bluffing, realizing only too late that he was implementing deeply held policy stances that he had embraced for decades.
TRUMP SAYS HE CALLED OFF IRAN STRIKES TO ‘MAKE A DEAL’ WITH TEHRAN
Maintaining this approach for the remainder of his presidency, however, will prove a particular challenge. As his time in office draws to a close, and his approach becomes more predictable, it is increasingly likely that his bluff may be called. This reveals a fundamental flaw in the use of the madman theory: If it is utilized, but dismissed by an opponent, what next? Or worse, what if an opponent believes the threat and decides to launch a preemptive strike before the initial threat can be carried out? Finally, if an opponent believes a leader to be mad, how could they expect any negotiations aimed at solving the situation to be effective? Therein lies the dilemma of the madman theory: Its desire to establish a sense of irrationality ultimately depends on a belief in the rational application of diplomacy to resolve a crisis.
Only Trump knows for certain the extent to which he is consciously adopting the madman theory, but as the political gulf widens in the United States, so too does the gap in understanding between his actions and his intent. As the line between Trump’s alleged madness and his machinations becomes increasingly blurred by the partisan response to his every act, an accurate understanding of the madman theory, and its embrace by Trump as commander in chief, is essential to any explanation of his continuing acts on the world stage.
Dr. James D. Boys is a senior research fellow at the Centre on US Politics at University College London. His latest book, US Grand Strategy and the Madman Theory, is published by Manchester University Press.
