In his editorial, Philippe Gélie reflects on Donald Trump's unconventional approach to international relations, particularly his military actions against Iran. Gélie argues that Trump's methods mirror his business tactics, wherein he engages in conflict to gauge outcomes rather than to achieve a decisive conclusion. This strategy raises significant questions about the clarity of Trump's objectives, especially after ten days of military strikes without a defined goal that is usually expected in military engagements. Moreover, Gélie suggests that Trump's actions have blurred the lines set by previous doctrines regarding the use of military force, indicating a departure from established norms of international conflict resolution.

The editorial points out that Trump's justification for his military strikes hinges on a narrative that paints Iran as a direct threat to both Israel and the United States, linking it to terrorism and nuclear ambitions. Gélie observes that this rhetoric, while compelling, lacks a practical framework that delivers strategic clarity. Attention is drawn to the responses from international legal experts, who find themselves in a precarious position to challenge Trump's assertions due to the lack of engagement with traditional legal limits and norms established over the past decades.

Gélie concludes by highlighting a broader implication of Trump's approach to warfare, which is the opening up of military actions to the unpredictability associated with entrepreneurship. He raises alarms about this trend, suggesting that the evolution of military strategy under Trump's leadership could lead to a restructured international order, where traditional limitations are disregarded in favor of opportunistic decision-making. This may redefine how the United States engages with both allies and adversaries in a tumultuous global landscape.