Experts are taken aback by Trump's unpredictable behavior in his second term, particularly in relation to military actions against Iran and increased tensions in the Middle East.
The recent news of a large-scale attack by the U.S. and Israel against Iran has left many Middle East experts bewildered, as initial predictions doubted that President Donald Trump would initiate such a confrontation. Experts analyzing accumulated geopolitical information and conditions in the U.S. and Iran have not adequately considered a significant factor: the dramatic change in Trump during his 'second term.' Unlike the first term when he used a so-called 'madman strategy' to create chaos and extract maximum advantages, Trump in his second term has exhibited unpredictability that violates international law and common sense.
In his first term, Trump shocked allies and adversaries alike with proposals like demanding an exorbitant $50 billion from South Korea for defense costs, threatening NATO allies with withdrawal unless they raised their defense spending, and engaging in extreme rhetoric against North Korea, culminating in unprecedented summits. His harsh behavior often served more as a performance for better deals, with a control mechanism in the form of seasoned advisors like John Kelly and James Mattis that mitigated some of his erratic decisions. However, the onset of Trump's second term in January last year marked a stark departure from this pattern, as evidenced by a series of military operations that destabilized the Middle East.
Last June, Trump directed a concentrated attack on major Iranian military facilities that unsettled the existing order in the region. This year, he surprised the international community by executing an operation in Venezuela to arrest President Nicolás Maduro, followed closely by a large-scale assault on Iran in coordination with Israel, which effectively plunged the entire region into a state of war. The military options that might have been previously restrained by concerns over geopolitical repercussions and economic costs are now being realized through high-intensity interventions, signaling that any assumption of restraint is no longer valid when analyzing the current American landscape.
