The new US security strategy: Being the greatest, not the only one, in a multipolar world

Trump’s National Security Strategy plan has finally been announced. As the second Trump term nears the end of its first year, we are faced with a text that consolidates the foreign policy arguments we have heard from Trump and his team for months and presents them to the public.

For many, there is nothing new in the text. However, it must be said that this security strategy plan serves as an important reminder for those not yet convinced that the US has radically changed its global role.

This change is so potent that it can be understood even just by focusing on the language. In the National Security Strategy text published by Joe Biden in 2022, the word “democracy” appeared 38 times and “democratic” 45 times. In Trump’s security strategy text published this week, the word democracy was used only three times. This was not only a sharp departure from the classic US policy of “spreading democracy” (or paying lip service to it), but also a strong emphasis that they are not interested in how countries govern themselves. Throughout the text, this policy was clearly laid out. It was stated that “liberal” obsessions, such as interfering in the political systems of countries worldwide and changing forms of governance, have been left behind.

Trump and the conservative think tanks behind him adhere to a realist rather than an idealistic line. Although the Trump administration wants to emphasize in the text that it is as intellectually centrist as possible, it is a structure that pursues a realist foreign policy within the context of international relations. The report by Trump’s Pentagon policy chief Elbridge Colby months ago was a preview of this Strategy plan. In the report, he stated that the US should withdraw from global operations and focus on its own continent and even on problems within its borders.

The new Monroe Doctrine

One of the definitions Trump has pronounced most frequently regarding foreign policy since the election period was the Monroe Doctrine. It was a plan put forward by US President James Monroe in 1823, aspiring to prevent newly liberated Central and South American countries from being targeted by other colonial European powers. Just like in Colby’s report, many references were made to the Monroe Doctrine in this strategic plan text, with the claim that the real threat to the US lies on its own continent.

So, what were these threats?

Although Trump tries to explain the tension with Venezuela these days mostly through the fight against “drug cartels,” he passed over the cartel issue briefly in this text and focused on the real issue; he does not want foreign powers on the continent.

Especially China’s investments—which are economic for now but perhaps will become military soon—are seen as a major threat to the US. Venezuela gaining the technologies to process its partially technically “dirty” oil would mean it strengthening economically, and perhaps eventually appearing right next to the US as a “Chinese base.”

In other words, this Monroe Doctrine in a “Trump tone” means that the policy of containing China, which has been going on for decades, is deemed insufficient. The US wants to defeat China on its home turf before playing the away game.

That is, the US will move a significant part of its military power to its own continent. In countries that have recently caused problems for the US, especially Venezuela, either regime changes will be attempted, or heavy concessions will be demanded. It will be ensured that China and Russia stay away from the backyard.

The end of liberalism?

The Trump administration clearly emphasizes in the text that the perception that “the world will gradually liberalize” is erroneous. US heavy industry could move to China under the pretext of cheap labor; after all, China would soon become a liberal state too. However, this did not happen. If the world is to be a place where big powers compete just like in the past, the US could not remain in such a disadvantageous position regarding production. Therefore, moving lost manufacturing back to the US is one of the policies the Trump administration views as critically important.

Abandoning tasks like protecting democracies and spreading liberalism should be understood somewhat through the new administration’s perspective on Europe. The US still views Europe, especially the Anglosphere (UK, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand), as close both culturally and politically. However, according to them, the European Union is the biggest threat facing Europe. With tolerance for the migrant crisis, DEI [Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion] as the policy face of liberal identity politics, and the stance favoring the continuation of the war in relations with Russia, the Trump administration believes EU leaders pose a serious obstacle to its own policies. Russia also occupies very little space in the strategic plan compared to former administrations. It is seen not as a threat to the US, but as a diplomatic relationship that needs to be stabilized.

Asia

Although focusing on its own continent regarding the China issue, the Trump administration has not completely abandoned Taiwan to its fate. We hadn’t seen Donald Trump talk much about Taiwan over the past 11 months. He hadn’t approached new military support packages and had stayed away from radical moves that would escalate tensions in the strait, unlike previous administrations. He remained even more passive regarding Taiwan compared to his own first term.

In this text, it became clearer that US policy on Taiwan has not changed, that it defends preventing China from seizing Taiwan, but wants the status quo in Taiwan to remain as is. That is, the US is pushing Taiwan to the background for now. When it consolidates its hegemony on its own continent, it will likely reopen the Taiwan file. Meanwhile, to block China, it emphasizes building a navy stronger than China’s and expecting higher military deterrence from regional countries.

The Middle East

Let’s come to the part that concerns us the most. Trump’s West Asia policy is at least as radical as the one in Ukraine. The Trump administration says the Middle East should no longer constitute the center of American policies. According to Trump, Westerners, primarily the US, have been trying to teach the Middle East how to live for many years. Trump says he will end these unsuccessful “nation-building” projects.

Of course, there is a tense wait in Turkey regarding US Syria policy. What will be the fate of the YPG terrorist organization after Assad’s fall? Tom Barrack, the Ambassador to Turkey and Special Envoy for Syria, known for his closeness to Trump, makes a statement in a different tone every week. Good intentions and wishes for Syria aside, the matter gets knotted at this point; if the YPG does not lay down arms, and if Turkey conducts an operation to disband the terrorist organization, will Donald Trump write another letter?

Compared to his first term, there is a Trump administration that is stronger in the US, more commanding of foreign policy, and more inclined to disrupt the status quo. From the Gaza plan to Ukraine, from energy trade to the US’s new Caucasus landing, a new relationship model that can be defined as binding has developed with Turkey at many points. Will Donald Trump prefer to sacrifice all this for the PKK and derivative structures, which he sees as one of the nation-building projects doomed to failure?

Unlike Biden and his predecessors, Trump formed a policy by understanding Russia’s national security concerns regarding the Ukraine issue more clearly. All the speeches he has made on Syria and Turkey to date create the perception that the same logic could be valid for Turkey.

Therefore, my expectation is that, at least in the initial phase, Trump will not show an attitude favoring the terrorist organization. I say “in the initial phase” because as the operation duration extends, it is quite possible that the terrorist organization will make a global fuss as it did before, demand pressure be put on Turkey, and that Jewish lobbies—which wouldn’t have supported this pressure so much in the past but now have quite high motivations—will force the American administration to intervene. Despite everything, Turkey is closer to winning. This comment is made by setting aside ideological attitudes and short-term political interests. Geopolitically, Trump’s America has created a set of opportunities for Turkey. However, the duration of these opportunities is limited. Turkey needs to prevent the statification [becoming a state] of terror before ending the terror problem. Therefore, the next few months are of critical importance.

Trump’s world

In conclusion, the US under Trump is undergoing a radical policy change in almost every region. It is now useful to review the rote learning built after the Cold War. Unlike the Biden/Obama eras, Trump’s foreign policy accepts that a multipolar world exists and constructs a strategy claiming to prioritize American interests in such a world. This policy envisions a “withdrawal” at a certain level. Many may view this as a defeat. It is partly so. At least, it is a defeat for those who want to liberalize the world and make the unipolar American order permanent.

Nevertheless, the US is not withdrawing from the world for good; it is making a strategic withdrawal to solve problems that could deeply threaten its own existence and to “secure” its backyard. Some of the policies to be implemented in this period may result in failure, and some in disaster. South America, which will feel the American threat most closely, may prove to be a much tougher nut to crack. During the fight against the migrant crisis, domestic disturbances may get out of control. The aggressive attitude to be applied to Europe may move Europe’s strategic direction far away from the US.

According to Trump, in this multipolar world, American hegemony will take its place not as the sole great power, but as the greatest. This idea is hidden in one of the paragraphs at the very beginning of the text;

“A strategy must evaluate, classify, and prioritize. No matter how important they are, every country, every region, every problem, or every cause cannot be the focal point of American strategy. The sole purpose of foreign policy is to preserve main national interests. This is the only fundamental focus of our strategy.”