Tehran – Trump’s approach to global operations diverges significantly from the traditional strategies of American facilities. Trump does not consider America to be a “police state.” He is skeptical of NATO, does not support war with Russia, and believes that the presence of US forces in West Asia will help protect primarily Arab allies. In his view, they should bear the financial burden of its protection.
The establishment of America, represented by institutions like the Pentagon and the White House, follows a long-term strategic vision. It maintains hundreds of military bases around the world and pursues structured political strategies in various regions.
In contrast, Trump envisions American leadership within a multipolar world order. He has little interest in imposing the American system on other countries, and focuses on fostering economic alliances that benefit the United States, in order to counter the rise of the BRICS and prevent alternative economic blocs from challenging the dominance of the dollar. Rather than fighting ideological battles, his strategy revolves around economic leverage.
An important example of facility impact is USAID, which has historically served as a hideaway tool to advance American unipolarity. By using soft power tactics, it helped destabilize the nation through coups and revolutions of colour. But under Trump, funding for such initiatives has been cut, allowing the US to save billions. His approach is more direct than relying on NGOs to influence society. He prefers sanctions as a means of coercion. This shift weakens America’s influence at the grassroots level, creating a vacuum that local movements and other forces can exploit.
Trump aims to strengthen the US economy through relative stability rather than conflict. He opposes a long-term war with Russia and supports investment in sanctions. Rather than spending $175 billion on Ukraine, he considers greater economic potential in cooperation with Russia. His broader goal is to withdraw costly foreign commitments, integrate America’s economic control, and use economic leverage such as tariffs and sanctions to maintain control. This was evident in his approach to Zelensky, where he set clear terms for support.
This stance is in stark contrast to the European stance, which is deeply hostile to Russia and relies on us to counter it. Trump’s push for increased tariffs on European imports could reduce demand for US European goods, stimulate domestic manufacturing and strengthen the dollar. His retreat from NATO further exposes contradictions within the alliance, creating a strategic openness that others may exploit.
Trump operates like a political tsunami. In Gaza, he positioned himself as the real power behind the war, and stopped it on his own terms. Even his controversial depopulation proposals were more of a negotiation tool than a concrete plan. He believes Western Asia is secondary to regions such as Mexico, Panama and Greenland. When asked about Iran’s strength, he admits that Iran is very strong. He calls for Netanyahu’s frustration to be highly fond of focusing on nuclear containment rather than military conflict.
Trump also tends to withdraw when he sees American involvement as a financial outflow. While Israel has expanded its influence in Syria, its actions spark widespread resistance and reveals that Israel is the source of ongoing conflict, Trump may rethink US support.
As Israel’s weakening drives search for regional alternatives, Trump’s stance is more transactional, in contrast to the deep state approach. Without any significant opposition, he stamps the interests of Israel’s territory. However, if the costs outweigh the benefits, he is willing to gradually remove support from the professional association.