Emerging Trump doctrine: Seeking 3 goals

Deeply concerned by Iran’s long-standing and increasingly hostile theocratic posture, U.S. President Trump appeared determined to pursue military action. Recent developments, however, suggest a growing emphasis on securing a ceasefire and bringing the war to an end. In particular, he seems intensely focused on eliminating Iran’s stockpile of approximately 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60 percent.

From a broader geopolitical perspective, the motivation behind these actions appears to extend beyond narrow U.S. national or economic interests. Rather, it may be understood as an effort to reshape the international order in pursuit of long-term stability, peace and security. Viewed through this strategic lens, Trump’s approach could be characterized as the emergence of a new geopolitical doctrine.

Trump appears to believe that Greenland holds critical strategic value in the context of great power competition. If left unchecked, the region could fall under the increasing influence of Russia and China. Furthermore, growing divisions between the United States and its NATO allies have weakened collective efforts to counter such influence. Thus, his proposal to integrate Greenland should not be seen merely as territorial expansion, but rather as a strategic pillar aimed at preserving regional stability and security.

The emerging doctrine emphasizes the maintenance of a balanced peace through the prevention of nuclear proliferation. Trump has expressed strong determination to eliminate Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile, arguing that a nuclear-armed Iran would destabilize the regional balance and potentially lead to a global conflict. The lack of unified support from NATO members has further complicated this objective, raising questions about alliance cohesion and commitment. In this regard, Trump’s strategy can be interpreted as an effort to establish a new regional order.

The doctrine seeks to prevent a large-scale war that could devastate the historical and cultural legacy of Persian civilization. It does not appear to be driven solely by the pursuit of economic gains, such as control over oil resources. Rather, the United States aims to regulate the global oil market in a way that prevents excessive exports to rival powers such as China and Russia, while promoting fair and stable distribution.

The Trump administration does not intend to provoke a religious conflict between the United States and Iran, contrary to the “clash of civilizations” thesis proposed by Samuel Huntington. Instead, the focus remains on strategic and security considerations rather than ideological confrontation.

The U.S. policy emphasizes the principle of freedom of navigation, particularly in critical waterways such as the Strait of Hormuz. From this perspective, Iran is not entitled to impose transit fees on vessels passing through this international strait. The U.S. Navy’s presence in the region reflects its commitment to upholding international maritime law and ensuring open access to global shipping routes.

The emerging doctrine appears to be taking much longer to take shape, as "Project Freedom" collapsed within only a few days. Both the United States and Iran failed to fully implement their respective strategies for reopening the Strait of Hormuz, further exacerbating maritime insecurity in the region.

The prospects for an early resolution to the conflict may depend on ongoing diplomatic and multilateral naval operations led by France's Emmanuel Macron and the U.K.'s Keir Starmer. As a multilateral initiative, it should, among other things, focus on protecting civilian vessels’ freedom of navigation.

As to ideology and values, the emerging Trump doctrine, as a long-term strategy, dreams to plant trees capable of liberating Iranian women and promoting democratic values for all Iranians.

In conclusion, the emerging Trump doctrine, despite its controversies, will contribute to three vital goals — long-term peace, strengthened international security and forward-looking cooperative development across the world.

Heo Mane, professor emeritus at Pusan National University, is a former president of the Korean Society of Contemporary European Studies. The views expressed in this article do not represent the editorial stance of The Korea Times.