Emerging Trump Doctrine--Its Implications on Sutainable Peace

[허만]

Emerging Trump Doctrine: Its Implications on Sustainable Peace
Professor Emeritus Heo Mane / Former President of KSCES

Launched under the political slogan “Make America Great Again (MAGA),” Donald Trump has advanced a series of bold and controversial policy positions. Among them are his declaration regarding the potential integration of Greenland into U.S. territory and his unexpected but slightly expected initiation of military action against Iran. He has also taken a firm stance against Iran’s stockpile of 440 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, arguing that such material can be readily converted for nuclear weapons use. Critics contend that this policy lacks formal approval from the U.S. Congress and raises serious legal and strategic concerns.

What, then, is the underlying rationale that has driven Trump toward military confrontation with Iran, reportedly with the support of Israel, a state deeply concerned with its national security? From a broader geopolitical perspective, the motivation appears to extend beyond narrow U.S. national or economic interests. Instead, it may be interpreted as an attempt to reshape the international environment in pursuit of sustainable peace and security. Viewed in this long-term context, Trump’s approach can be described as an emerging doctrine.

First, 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.

Second, 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.

Third, 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.

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

Fifth, 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.

Sixth, the emerging doctrine must prioritize strengthening cohesion between the United States and Israel, alongside the European Union and NATO allies, in order to address the severe challenges arising from the uncertainty surrounding ceasefire negotiations and broader multilateral talks. This effort is particularly critical in light of the growing maritime insecurity in the Strait of Hormuz. Both the United States and Iran must exercise restraint and avoid further escalation in the region, as any disruption could jeopardize the fragile progress of ceasefire talks currently being mediated by Pakistan. It is essential for both parties to recognize that escalating violence in international waters would have profoundly detrimental consequences for all stakeholders.

Finally, the prospects for an early resolution to the conflict may depend on ongoing diplomatic efforts led by Emmanuel Macron and Keir Starmer. As an active participant in the international community, South Korea should also intensify its diplomatic efforts to help bring the conflict to a close. The global community hopes that these negotiations will not collapse but instead yield meaningful progress toward balanced peace and shared prosperity.

In conclusion, the emerging Trump doctrine, despite its controversies, will be understood as an attempt to prevent large-scale conflict and establish a more stable international order. Its ultimate success will depend on whether it can genuinely contribute to long-term peace, security, and cooperative development across the world. To achieve these three goals, the emerging Trump doctrine should adopt a more moderate, cooperative and flexible appraoch, rather one that is rigid or unilateral. It must also avoid  hasty or  ill-considered solutions.