Jahangir Mohammed explains the MAD theory of political behaviour adopted by Donald Trump and assesses its chances of success.

Donald Trump And the Art of Political Madness

Donald Trump is not your typical U.S. president. In addition to being a property tycoon, he became a reality TV star turned politician. His frequently referenced book, The Art of the Deal (1987), was ghostwritten for him. It portrays an image of Trump as a successful property dealmaker, which he is now celebrated for in his political career.

His style of politics has shocked the world. The skills he developed in the entertainment business are on display. He is crude and blunt, expressing his thoughts to shock people into action. He threatens to take ownership of countries friendly to the U.S., bomb and destroy others, deport entire populations, and impose tariffs on 60% of the nation’s goods worldwide. He does this publicly in the Oval Office, intimidating and bullying- sometimes praising world leaders while using gaming and gambling metaphors. His unpredictability creates uncertainty, leaving others to wonder, “Will he, or won’t he?” or if he is mad enough to execute his threats. He has cultivated an image of being unstable enough to do what others will not. The psychology of threat and bluff is central to his strategy. However, to be taken seriously, bluffing sometimes requires delivering on threats, which he occasionally does. The political challenge for other leaders is knowing when a bluff represents a genuine threat or is merely part of the game.

World leaders seem uncertain about how to manage Trump. Some moments from meetings with leaders stand out. The iconic encounter with Volodymyr Zelensky epitomised his strategic approach, as Zelensky appeared unaware he was part of Trump’s game. Trump accused Zelensky of what he does best: gambling.

“You’re not in a good position. You don’t have the cards right now. With us, you start having cards.” Zelensky: “I’m not playing cards.” Trump: “Yeah, you’re playing cards. You’re gambling with the lives of millions of people. You’re gambling with World War III.”

The scene could have been made for reality TV and an episode of The Apprentice.

Then there was King Hussein of Jordan, whose facial expression and constant blinking were signs of someone in a state of trepidation. Keir Starmer, meanwhile, adopted the typical British grovelling posture when interacting with US presidents, offering the enticing prospect of an audience with His Majesty the King. Donald Trump appeared momentarily taken aback, seeming disinterested and unsure how to respond. He seemed to feign excitement about meeting His Majesty.

As an authoritarian leader, Trump admires other authoritarian leaders. Consequently, when Netanyahu and Modi of India arrived, chairs were pulled out, much like for guests seated at a dining table.

The United States and the Madman Theory of International Politics

Donald Trump’s skill in presenting himself as an unpredictable madman is well-established in political behaviour theory. Sun Tzu in “The Art of War” and Machiavelli in “The Prince” address themes of threats and warfare. Threats and bluffing are essential parts of psychological propaganda in wars.

Former U.S. President Richard Nixon employed the madman theory to intimidate foreign adversaries. This theory suggested that the perception of mental instability could provide an advantage in the U.S. war against Vietnam, though it did not seem to deter the Vietnamese from resisting. Additionally, MAD was considered beneficial during the Cold War with the Soviet Union. Every U.S. leader since the Cold War has engaged in bluffing and threatening warfare—nuclear or conventional—to achieve their strategic goals, even when the ultimate aim was peace.

Trump, on the other hand, uses MAD not just for war situations and adversaries but for trade, against allies and friends and in domestic politics.

In addition to utilising the MAD theory, Trump and his advisors seem to follow the geopolitical strategy outlined in The Grand Chessboard (1997) by former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, who presented a vision of maintaining American pre-eminence in the twenty-first century.

Brzezinski argues that the Eurasian supercontinent (Europe and Asia) is the central arena for global power- the Grand Chessboard. Whoever controls Eurasia can control the world. To maintain American primacy, he suggests that the U.S. must actively manage Eurasian affairs to thwart the rise of a competing power. The primary strategic focus is to prevent the coalition of anti-American forces in Eurasia (e.g., a China-Russia-Iran axis or a united Europe with an anti-U.S. stance). Various U.S. administrations have adhered to parts of the Brzezinski strategy, which can also be seen in Trump’s foreign policies.

It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump’s threats and bluff tactics, often the starting point for a dialogue, will lead to some success. He has been known to follow through and roll back on his threats, and unpredictability is a hallmark of Trump’s negotiation style. Still, the underlying strategy is becoming clearer on several fronts. Here, I examine Trump’s MAD strategy and the outcomes.

Trump’s Foreign Policy Strategy and Likely Outcomes.

Russia-Ukraine: Trump’s strategy aligns with the “Grand Chessboard” (GC). It aims to accommodate Russia’s position on Ukraine to prevent a stronger coalition from forming between Russia, China, and Iran, seeking to reintegrate Russia into the West. At the same time, Trump has effectively reduced U.S. resources allocated to Ukraine while urging Europe to increase its contributions, which will help maintain a divide between Europe and Russia. Regarding Ukraine, Trump insists that Zelensky surrender and transfer some of his country’s mineral wealth to the U.S.

So far, the indications suggest that neither Ukraine nor Russia is giving in to the US strategy. Russia has learned lessons from its attempts to integrate into the Western liberal world and is unlikely to be wooed back, while Ukraine is not expected to surrender to Russia.

NATO: Trump’s threats to leave NATO are designed to persuade the Europeans to contribute more to its upkeep, and they have worked to some extent. However, the US is unlikely to leave an institution that gives it global influence and control over Europe.

The EU: Following the GC goals, the US strategy preserves divisions within the EU and prevents it from falling into Russia’s and Eurasia’s sphere of influence. Britain and EU countries have already committed to an ongoing war, supporting Ukraine against Russia. Brexit was fundamentally a strategy orchestrated by the US. The MAGA movement has backed white nationalist movements in Europe to manage and maintain Europe’s alignment with the US. So far, the US strategy with Europe appears effective.

Canada, Greenland, Panama Canal, and Mexico: Trump’s threats to effectively absorb these countries and bring them under US control, turning them into vassal states, have faced resistance and are unlikely to succeed.

Gaza/Palestine: There is no change in the US strategy, which remains unwavering in its support for Israel and its opposition to the Palestinian people. Trump has, however, threatened the already genocide-devastated population with expulsion from Gaza, pressuring and coercing Arab states to accept Gazans. Trump is simply assisting Israel in achieving what it could not accomplish on the battlefield through political and diplomatic intimidation. Thus far, even the usually compliant Arab states have rejected the displacement of the people of Gaza. The Palestinian people are unlikely to stop resisting Israeli policies even if they are expelled from Gaza.

Iran: Trump has threatened to bomb Iran if they do not surrender their nuclear weapons and missile technology and abandon their regional allies. Iran has been living with threats of war and sanctions since 1979 from various US presidents and Israel, so these threats are unlikely to have much impact. No one has more experience of dealing with a hostile US than Iran. They have learned to adapt to such threats, both real and bluff. Iran also employs a strategy of threats and bluffs of its own. While Trump personally may not want a war, he is influenced by his pro-Israeli backers and the most pro-Zionist administration in US history, who want the US to fight Iran. Iran possesses leverage in nuclear enrichment and a means of potentially shutting down the global energy supply. A likely scenario is some eventual deal over nuclear facilities and enrichment, but little more than this. However, that will not satisfy Israel and its supporters, who are proposing the Libyan option, so the potential for a regional war is real.

Trade Tariffs: Trump’s global tariff announcement resembled another reality TV show. While threats and bluffs may hold some value in politics, diplomacy, and war, applying them to trade in a globally interconnected world has led to a volatile reaction from the markets and other countries. Forcing people to increase trade with an uncompetitive United States will yield limited success. Although Trump has rolled back some tariffs, he has increased those on China. Some countries will fall in line, whilst others will resist and retaliate. The prospect of a global trade war and recession is now real.

China: For the last five years, the U.S. has been engaged in a new cold war against China. Trump’s trade tariff strategy has highlighted the underlying dilemma in U.S. foreign policy: how to prevent China from becoming the world’s leading economic power. For several years, the U.S. has imposed sanctions on sectors of China’s trade that challenge US industry, such as cotton and high-tech goods. China’s New Silk Road will connect Chinese trade routes to Europe and Eurasia. This will elevate Eurasia to the world’s most powerful bloc and revive a multi-polar world. Trump’s trade and economic war and threats against China are unlikely to succeed, but the economic and political battle against China will continue.

As a reality TV entertainer, Donald Trump appeals to people’s emotions and conspiracy theories, disregarding facts and reality. However, beneath his bluff and bluster, there has been little change in US foreign policy, although there have been some domestic policy shifts. Madman politics with theatrics may seem like good entertainment, but authoritarian leadership that appeals to emotions and is armed with nationalistic propaganda typically leads to fascism at home and abroad.