There are two views about the Trump Presidency.  The majority view appears to be that Trump is deranged, erratic and irrational.  A minority view is that there is a coherence about the State’s policy. 

However, the two views are not incompatible.  Trump is erratic, but the State is coherent.  In his Presidential campaign he advocated an end to “forever wars”.  It is probable that Trump was sincere in his belief, but it also appears that he is a very superficial person.  If a President has no political substance, the policy of the State reverts to a default position. 

The default position of the State is that the US must retain its dominant position in the world and undermine rival Powers.  This is not to say that the State is monolithic.  There are the occasional dissenting voices, which advocate an adaptation to a multi-polar world.  But the thrust of US policy over the last twenty years—regardless of whether there has been a Republican or Democratic Presidential incumbent—has been to retain American dominance. 

It would take a very strong President to re-orientate the State to the new configuration of geopolitical forces.  Unfortunately, despite initial impressions, Donald Trump is not that person. 

As indicated in the May issue of the Irish Political Review, America’s current geopolitical position is not very different from Britain’s in 1914, as described by Roger Casement.  Britain, like America, was in geopolitical terms an island nation.  It had the capacity to fight wars without those wars visiting its own soil.  It also had the capacity to fight wars by using proxies.  In 1914 Britain’s main rival was Germany, whereas now America’s rival is China.  The main difference between the two situations is that in 1914 Britain had a powerful ally (i.e. the United States) which could step in when the war was not going well.  America now has only vassals and proxies. 

America believes that it can retain its dominant position by controlling the world’s energy resources.  It thinks that it has an advantage over China because of the latter’s dependence on energy imports.  Its objective is to choke off the supply of oil and gas from Russia and West Asia to China.  Prior to its war against Iran, it took control of Venezuelan oil. 

An important element in America’s strategy is regime change in Iran.  It is quite often said that Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, had been trying to convince American Presidents for the last 20 years to invade Iran, but only Trump was stupid enough to follow his advice.

However, before Trump, an attack on Iran was not viable.  The Americans first had to topple the Iraq regime in 2003.  Then there were the ‘Arab Spring’ and the overthrow of the Libyan regime.  The Syrian regime was toppled in December 2024, in the dying days of the Biden Presidency. 

 This allowed the Americans to use Syrian airspace unhindered, and was the penultimate piece in the jigsaw enabling an attack on Iran. 

Biden didn’t have this advantage.  Nevertheless, under his Presidency, Israel did attack Iran.

So, Trump’s actions are consistent with the default position of the State.

In Eastern Europe America’s strategy for over twenty years has been to move NATO eastwards.  It envisaged encircling Russia through the political capture of Georgia and Ukraine, as a prelude towards Balkanising Russia.  While it has failed in the case of Georgia, it has been spectacularly successful in the political capture of Ukraine.  Ukraine ceased to be an independent State in 2014.

Of course, having a coherent long-term strategy does not guarantee success!  Britain had a coherent strategy in the First World War but, while it ended up on the winning side, its position in the world was diminished. 

There is no doubt that America’s objective was to bring about regime change in both Russia and Iran.  It is equally clear that America will not achieve this objective in the foreseeable future.  So, does this mean that it has suffered a strategic defeat?

In the game of snooker sometimes a player has what is called “a shot to nothing”.  This means that, even if he misses the shot, the cue ball will not go to a position that will have damaging consequences. 

Could it be said that America played a shot to nothing in Ukraine?  It failed to destroy Russia, but—by destroying the Nord stream pipelines—it has made Europe dependent on American LNG [liquid natural gas].  It has also been able to use Ukraine as a launching pad to attack Russia’s energy infrastructure. 

But the flaw in this scenario is that America does not have the capacity to supply Europe’s energy needs.  The proof of this is that Scott Bessant (the Treasury Secretary) has lifted sanctions on the export of Russian oil and gas to Europe. 

Another consequence of the Ukraine War is that it has exposed the inability of NATO to fight a war of attrition because of a weak manufacturing sector. 

In contrast, Russia has restored its self-confidence.  One Russian commentator has said that it has found its soul.  It has been able to withstand everything that NATO has thrown at it.  There is no doubt that Russia is winning the war;  the only question is whether it will it end up with the capture of the majority Russian-speaking areas of Odessa and Kharkhiv.  It is likely that it will and will also be able to capture territory contiguous to the Transnistria region of Moldova. 

In the case of Iran could it be said that America played a “shot to nothing”?  The war against Iran has failed to lead to regime change, but it has restricted the supply of oil to China—America’s main trade rival.  At present ship movements in the Gulf are one third of the normal level of activity. 

But, from an American point of view, this outcome is grasping at straws.  China might be dependent on oil from West Asia, but America is dependent on credit from the Gulf States.  It is also dependent on urea—the main component for fertiliser.  (Urea is made from coal and natural gas and China is the world’s main producer.  Other big producers include Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Oman, along with Egypt and Algeria.)

In addition, it is not quite correct to say that America is self-sufficient in Energy.  It is a net importer of oil.  Interestingly Canada is the fourth largest oil producer.  It accounts for 62% of US crude oil imports, which explains Trump’s interest in that country.  

Many US refineries are only suitable for crude oil. So, America exports ‘refined oil’, but imports crude oil. 

It also should be said that China has been planning for many years for the current situation.  It has dramatically reduced its dependence on fossil fuels by investment in renewable energy.  It has also deepened its relationship with Russia by investing in oil and gas pipelines.  The Chinese Belt and Road initiative means that Iran can also export by land. 

As well as failing to change the regime in Iran, America has been unable to defend its clients in the region from military attack.  The latter have concluded that they cannot rely on America for protection.  Indeed, an alliance with America increases the security risk of those countries!

Thus Saudi Arabia has restricted its airspace for America.  It looks like a deal has been made with Iran to avoid the latter attacking Saudi oil infrastructure and desalination plants.  So Saudi Arabia is less of a vassal of America than Europe! 

Apart from Israel—which hopes to emerge as top dog from the ruins of West Asia—it is in no one’s interest to destroy the economies of the Gulf States. 

Iran, like Russia, has experienced a boost in its confidence and self-belief.  The unprovoked attacks have unified the nation.  Its status in the world has never been greater.  Its control of the straits of Hormuz has established it as the dominant regional power.

American military bases in the region have been destroyed.  In the absence of such bases, it is difficult to see how America can sustain its blockade of Iran.

Another significant consequence has been a closer alignment of the BRICs countries.  In addition the experience of war has drawn Iran, Russia and China closer together. 

It appears that for America to succeed in its strategy it needed to destroy both Russia and Iran.  Its failure has left it badly exposed. 

The Italian communist Antonio Gramsci famously wrote:  

“The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born;  in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear”

The technological and political advance of China seems relentless.  The recent actions of the Trump administration have hastened America’s decline.  But in the “interregnum” there are great risks for the safety of the world!