Trump's erratic approach isn't random; it's a strategy to create chaos and uncertainty. This keeps adversaries off-balance, allowing him to exploit openings that emerge, much like a disruptive CEO. He is comfortable with instability and uses it as a tool for negotiation and advantage.

Unlike predecessors who framed foreign policy within a broader worldview (e.g., democracy promotion), Trump's approach is purely transactional and theatrical. It lacks a moral or ideological justification, instead focusing on demanding tribute, like oil from Venezuela, to appeal to a nationalist base without building a durable governing coalition.

Viewing Trump's actions as part of a grand strategic plan is flawed. According to inside sources, his administration's policy is purely tactical and present-focused, lacking memory of past decisions or a vision for the future. The mantra is, 'There is no yesterday. There is no tomorrow. There is only the now.'

To secure commitments from Donald Trump, diplomat Momdani employed a highly personalized strategy. Instead of policy debate, he presented old newspaper clippings celebrating Trump's past achievements, directly appealing to his ego and desire for a positive legacy, proving to be a "Trump whisperer."

Presidential decisions, such as the strike on Iran, may stem from a simplistic, personal "tit for tat" logic rather than complex geopolitical strategy. The President's own statement that "the Ayatollah tried to kill him" is seen as the direct, personal motivation for a major military action.

In the current political environment, foreign policy decisions like military strikes can be driven less by strategic objectives and more by their value as 'memes' or content. The primary goal becomes looking 'cool as fuck' and projecting strength, rather than achieving a tangible outcome.

The public threats of a military strike against Iran may be a high-stakes negotiating tactic, consistent with Trump's style of creating chaos before seeking a deal. The goal is likely not war, which would be politically damaging, but to force Iran into economic concessions or a new agreement on US terms.

Military actions against Iran and Venezuela, neither listed as top threats in official documents, are likely driven by a desire to secure quick "wins" for the Trump brand. This strategy targets irritants rather than genuine security issues to project strength for legacy-building purposes.

Anne Applebaum highlights a disturbing shift where high-stakes foreign policy, like the Ukraine peace plan, is conducted by businesspeople seeking personal financial gain. This mirrors the kleptocratic systems of autocratic states, prioritizing private profit over national or allied interests, and raises questions about who American foreign policy truly serves.