Introduction

The rise of Donald Trump in U.S. foreign policy cannot be reduced simply to a miscalculation by partisan elites or the temporary dissatisfaction of the middle class. Trump’s foreign policy reflects an accumulated crisis of U.S. hegemony and a deep gap between America’s material capabilities and its extensive commitments in the international order. From this perspective, Trump’s foreign policy is not a “deviation from the norm” but an alternative formulation of American power under conditions of relative decline.

Unlike previous presidents, Trump did not attempt to conceal the bare logic of power behind ethical, humanitarian, or liberal discourses. Instead, he openly declared that the world is a stage of transaction rather than norms, and America is not a guarantor of order but a claimant to benefits. This frankness makes “Trumpism” a pivotal moment for understanding U.S. foreign policy. 

• Theoretical Foundations of Trumpism: Realism Without Ornamentation

Trump’s foreign policy can be seen as a form of non-institutionalized realism that contradicts three major intellectual traditions:

1. Liberal internationalism (Wilsonianism),
2. Post–Cold War institutionalism,
3. Moral interventionism of both Democratic and Republican elites.

In this framework, concepts such as global values, responsibility to protect, democracy promotion, and collective security are replaced with power, cost, benefit, and transaction. Trump did not merely reject liberal norms; he reframed foreign policy logic around stern cost–benefit calculations. 

• Crisis of Commitments: The Collapse of American Leadership Logic

A central element of Trump’s foreign policy is the redefinition of U.S. commitments. For Trump:

1. Security alliances are not strategic investments but unreimbursed costs,
2. Europe and East Asia are “free riders” on American security,
3. Long-term commitments constrain U.S. strategic flexibility.

As a result, Trump undermined predictability—a cornerstone of deterrence and trust in international relations. This erosion of predictability did not only affect U.S. competitors; it also generated structural uncertainty among allies, prompting them toward strategic self-help. 

• Anti-Multilateralism: From Reform to Deconstruction

Unlike previous presidents who, even in dissatisfaction, sought to reform international institutions, Trump adopted strategies of withdrawal, threat, and disregard. In this approach:

1. International institutions lack inherent value,
2. Their legitimacy depends on compliance with U.S. will,
3. Rules are valid only if they can be selectively applied.

Trump’s withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) illustrates this logic: the deal was not merely a nuclear agreement but a symbol of multilateral constraint on U.S. power. By exiting, Trump signaled that the United States was unwilling to operate under rules it could not unilaterally redefine. 

• Iran at the Heart of Pressure Strategy: Trumpism’s Laboratory

The Islamic Republic of Iran became the primary arena for implementing Trump’s foreign policy. The maximum pressure campaign tested the effectiveness of American financial power in the absence of international consensus. This strategy prioritized:

1. Independence from international legitimacy,
2. Secondary sanctions and threats to third-party partners,
3. The conflation of economic, security, and domestic politics in Iran.

However, in practice, this policy did not change Iran’s strategic behavior; it rather compelled Tehran to strengthen asymmetric deterrence, active resistance, and alignment toward non-Western orders. 

• Economization of Security: A New Hegemonic Tool

Trump uniquely weaponized the economy in foreign policy. Sanctions evolved from a supplementary tool to the central instrument of U.S. external strategy. This shift produced significant structural effects:

1. Erosion of trust in the U.S. dollar and Western financial system,
2. Incentives for independent powers to create parallel mechanisms,
3. Deepening integration of geopolitics with geoeconomics.

From this perspective, maximum pressure against Iran was part of a broader global trend of securitizing the economy, undermining the foundations of the liberal economic order. 

• Strategic Paradox: Anti-Interventionism That Generates Crises

Trump presented himself as opposed to costly wars; yet his policies systematically increased strategic tensions. The assassination of martyred General Qasem Soleimani represents a salient example:

1. It carried far-reaching geopolitical consequences,
2. Lacked a coherent exit strategy or post-crisis management plan,
3. Had the potential to escalate into broader conflict.

This pattern reflects a form of crisis management without a vision of peace—a posture that neither leads to comprehensive war nor to sustained stability. 

• Trumpism as Accelerator of Liberal Order Decline

Trumpism should not be seen as the root cause of the liberal order’s decline but rather as its accelerant. His foreign policy:

1. Undermined liberal norms from within,
2. Legitimated anti-Western narratives,
3. Exposed discrepancies between U.S. rhetoric and action.

Consequently, powers such as China and Russia did not merely become competitors; they positioned themselves as alternatives to the American order. Meanwhile, Iran found increased strategic latitude. 

• Strategic Implications for the Islamic Republic of Iran

The Trump era offers several fundamental lessons for Iranian foreign policy:

1. Reliance on agreements with the United States without structural guarantees is risky,
2. Multilateralism without a balance of power is fragile,
3. Smart resistance can raise the cost of dominance,
4. The world is transitioning from a liberal order not toward a vacuum but toward an unstable multipolarity. 

Conclusion

Donald Trump’s foreign policy should be understood as an explicit expression of the United States’ hegemonic crisis—a crisis long obscured by liberal discourse. Trump demonstrated that when a dominant power can no longer sustain the costs of order, its response is not reform but deconstruction. For the Islamic Republic of Iran, Trumpism presents both a warning and an opportunity: a warning about U.S. volatility and an opportunity to redefine its role in a shifting world order.

 Sajjad Atazade, IPIS Expert

(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)