As tensions continue to mount between the United States and Iran, many find themselves asking: What will Donald Trump do next? Will he strike a deal with the Iranian regime, or will the US resort to military action? In this context, it’s essential to look at history to understand how past US presidents navigated similar situations. Can we glean any lessons from their actions to predict what Trump might do?
Learning from the past
In this conversation between Gil Troy and Jacob Laznik, they delve into the idea of using history to gauge Trump’s next steps. They focus on two central questions: Has Trump already made up his mind about a military strike against Iran? And, what might the world look like in a post-strike scenario? These questions reveal the importance of understanding the historical patterns of decision-making in high-stakes foreign policy situations.
Trump’s approach to foreign policy has often mirrored key historical figures, particularly in moments of international conflict. His style is marked by unpredictability, a tactic that many past US presidents, like Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War or Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, also employed when they faced critical decisions. The idea is simple: keep adversaries guessing while keeping options open. By applying this historical pattern to the Iran situation, it becomes clear that Trump’s decision-making might follow a similar path, using tough talk as leverage but maintaining the possibility of a diplomatic resolution.
A historical parallel
To better understand Trump’s potential strategy, we can look to history for lessons, one of the most poignant being the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. President John F. Kennedy faced a similar dilemma: how to respond to a direct threat while avoiding an all-out war. Ultimately, Kennedy employed a mix of military readiness and back-channel diplomacy, ultimately securing a peaceful resolution. This approach of combining showmanship with strategic negotiation has clear echoes in Trump’s own style of leadership.
Trump’s dealings with North Korea during his presidency also reflect this pattern. Much like Kennedy's handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, Trump focused on intense, often unpredictable rhetoric paired with surprising gestures of diplomacy. Trump's volatile style, however, sets him apart from previous presidents, who were often more cautious in their public posturing.
What a post-strike world might look like
The conversation also explores what the world could look like after a military strike on Iran. Looking at history, such strikes often lead to unforeseen consequences, especially in the Middle East. The Gulf War in the 1990s, for example, demonstrated how military action can spark wider regional instability. A similar scenario could unfold if Trump opts for a military response to the ongoing Iran crisis.
Much like past presidents, Trump would need to consider how his actions might impact not just Iran but other countries in the region, including Saudi Arabia, Israel, and even Russia. The potential for broader conflict is a lesson that previous US leaders learned the hard way, as military intervention in the Middle East has often led to extended engagements with no clear resolution.
Can Trump’s actions be predicted?
In the end, the key takeaway from the conversation is that while history can offer valuable insights, the future remains uncertain. Trump’s style of leadership is unique, and his actions, particularly regarding Iran, will likely be shaped by his own instincts and political goals. However, looking at the lessons of history, the Cuban missile crisis, the Gulf War, and even Trump’s previous engagements, can help us understand the potential risks and rewards of his next steps.
The overarching question remains: Can history predict Trump’s next move on Iran? While we may not have a crystal ball, understanding the historical context and patterns of past leaders gives us a clearer picture of what could come next. For more from Gil Troy, see his book To Resist the Academic Intifada: Letters to My Students on Defending the Zionist Dream.