TRUMP’S ENDLESS PERFORMATIVE WARMONGERING
Dr. Common Good
For a president who campaigned on pulling the US out of entangling foreign wars, Trump has in fact been quite the trigger-happy child, engaging in multiple, serial and episodic acts of aggression. But here is a key point – in general, these military actions (or threats thereof) are not integrated with any particular strategy or ongoing strategic aim. They are just performative outbursts, from a child who has power to “push the button” acting out. And in doing so, Trump continues to destroy the credibility and reliability of the US, even as he imagines that doing these things makes him (and thus the US) appear “tough.” Any global player who really is tough does not take this cosplay seriously. Take just a few examples:
Latest attacks on “ISIS” in Nigeria: On Christmas Day, Trump authorized a missile attack in Sokoto state, Nigeria against what he claimed was ISIS persecution of Christians to a degree “not seen in many years, even Centuries”, according to his rant-filled post. While nobody but the most extreme defends or applauds ISIS, there is little or no evidence that they are particularly targeting Christians. Violence in northern Nigeria is complex and has been occurring for years, drawing from ethnic, territorial and also religious conflicts. As the Nigerian Foreign Affairs Minister posted on X, “simplistic labels don’t solve complex threats.” Not only that, but some missiles hit farming villages where there was no violence, shocking and confusing residents (see CNN reporting on Jabo village, December 26). As usual, Trump brags and crows about the attack, claiming to have killed “ISIS terrorist scum,” even though there is little evidence that the attacks accomplished anything or even that they actually hit any concentration of ISIS members. Why then, did he do this, out of the blue, wasting American forces and putting innocent civilians at risk?
Naked, hypocritical aggression against Venezuela: As I have said before, we have to consider what the Trump administration is doing here apart from the separate issue of Nicolás Maduro as a brutal dictator. Why? Among other reasons, we know that Trump has no problem with brutal dictators, in fact he longs to become one. So let’s just rule out any fictitious moral justifications of that sort his administration may use. The apparent claim justifying his attacks on small boats in the Caribbean, seizing of Venezuelan oil tankers, saber-rattling about a possible invasion, and now an actual missile attack on a Venezuelan dock facility, is that Maduro is a drug trafficker and as such is a threat to the US. This is patently ridiculous and laden with hypocrisy. Venezuela is not a significant exporter of drugs to the US. More importantly, Trump doesn’t really have any problem with drug traffickers. He has pardoned or granted clemency to more than 90 drug criminals across his two terms (see reporting in the Atlantic, December 10), and in this term he pardoned Ross Ulbricht, founder of the online black market for drugs Silk Road, and recently pardoned former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted mass exporter of drugs to the US. He has also accused Maduro of “Emptying his prisons into the US,” and of sponsoring the Tren de Aragua gang in the US, neither of which have been backed up by a shred of evidence. Trump’s apparent animosity towards Maduro is based on one issue – Maduro openly dislikes Trump and spurns him. If Trump was really concerned about drug traffickers, maybe he should try to cut off the substantial flow of weapons from the US to Mexican drug cartels, which is one key source of their power.
Trump’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear capability: Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities in June, 2025 were hailed as an unqualified success, purportedly leaving Iran’s nuclear capability “completely and totally obliterated.” While the tactical prowess of the air attack can justifiably be acknowledged, what was really accomplished, if this was part of some long-term strategic aim to degrade Iran’s emergent nuclear capabilities? There is no evidence of any long-term strategy, and it is unclear what permanent damage the attacks actually caused, since the location of Iran’s enriched uranium stockpile remains unknown and the Iranians may have been able to move or shut off some of its centrifuges in the targeted nuclear sites, according to intelligence reports by the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and other expert sources. And because the attacks occurred while the U.S. was engaged in a negotiation, the damage to U.S. credibility cannot be known. All this must be considered against the effectiveness of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), otherwise known as the Iran Nuclear Deal, signed by President Obama and five other countries. Among other things, that deal capped Iranian enrichment below weapons grade for 15 years, significantly cut its enriched uranium stockpile, restricted enrichment capabilities, prevented weapons-grade plutonium production, and allowed around-the-clock access for monitoring purposes by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Ah, but Trump pulled out of that deal in 2018, claiming it was a “terrible, one-sided deal” with, as usual, no real evidence. Most likely, he pulled out simply because it was a signature Obama achievement and, emotional child that he is, he could not bear to endorse it.
Trump’s threats of military action against Greenland, or Panama: It is actually hard to even write those words – threats of military action against Greenland? What? Or against Panama? Previous posts by Dr. Common Good have addressed these two particularly ridiculous threats, but they still pop up in his administration’s rhetoric, now again with the appointment of Louisiana governor and Trump ally Jeff Landry as “special envoy” to Greenland, an entirely unprecedented position since Greenland is a semiautonomous territory of Denmark. Naturally, the Danes were furious. So, we must ask, “what hath Trump wrought” when our own NATO ally Denmark calls the United States a security threat because of his recurring hostile rhetoric towards Greenland? There may be actual U.S. security interests connected to Greenland and Panama, but if that were purely the motive, hostility and aggressive posturing would certainly not be the normal or rational approach to addressing these concerns, especially with long-time U.S. allies. For Trump, again, it is performative, the acting out of his need to “perform power.” What he wants are public displays of capitulation.
____________________________________
If you are searching for a traditional rationale for any of this aggression and waste of American military personnel, resources, and reputation, don’t bother. There isn’t any. Trump is an ignorant man-child with a colossally sensitive ego and a twisted desire to dominate others in highly public fashion. As Jonathan Chait said in The Atlantic back on December 10, “To better understand the president’s foreign policy, one must study the behavior of small children.”