J.D Vance gives name to U.S involvement in military action while praising Trump

Washington, D.C.: President Donald Trump deviated from his customary hesitancy to employ military action on Sunday when he ordered B-2 bombers to attack Iranian nuclear targets, immediately entangling the United States in a foreign conflict and frightening many of his “America First” followers.
Vice President JD Vance has now given the reasoning behind his choice a name: the Trump Doctrine.

In his speech on Tuesday, Vance outlined the components: state a clear American interest, attempt to resolve an issue diplomatically, and, if that is unsuccessful, “use overwhelming military power to solve it, and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict.”

However, some observers saw the new doctrine as an attempt to provide a neat framework for describing a foreign policy that sometimes appears erratic and contradictory.

“I find it difficult to empathize with something known as the ‘Trump Doctrine,'” said Aaron David Miller, a senior scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and a Middle East specialist.

“I don’t believe Trump has a philosophy. Trump, in my opinion, has just followed his instincts.
Following Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s declaration that Iran will not relinquish its uranium enrichment capabilities, Trump decided to intervene in the Israeli-Iranian confrontation. Trump declared a truce shortly after the U.S. attacks, and it has mostly held.

Trump reiterated his pledge on Wednesday that Iran would not be permitted to possess nuclear weapons and said that negotiations with Tehran would begin the following week. According to Iran, its nuclear program is only for peaceful reasons.

In response to a request for comment, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, “President Trump and Vice President Vance are the ideal team because they share the same ‘peace through strength’ vision for U.S. foreign policy.” MAGA ANXIETY

Trump is under pressure to provide an explanation for his choice to become involved in the Israel-Iran dispute. One of the administration’s primary spokespersons on the subject is Vance, who formerly supported isolationism.

Trump’s claims that the “stupid” U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had put the country in a quagmire and that he would try to stay out of international affairs helped him win over supporters.
With a few notable exceptions, such as the deployment of American action against Houthi rebels attacking from Yemen this year and his directives to assassinate Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020 and ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019, he has mostly kept his word.

However, many in the isolationist part of the Republican Party, including well-known Trump supporters like strategist Steve Bannon and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson, were incensed at the idea of the United States being drawn into a protracted war with Iran.
Opinion polls also show that Americans are very concerned about what may happen next.
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll that ended on Monday, 79% of Americans expressed concern “that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes.”

Vance seems to be attempting to appease Trump’s right wing by “trying to figure out how to explain how and why the administration can undertake a military action without it being a prelude to war,” according to Melanie Sisson, a senior foreign policy expert at the Brookings Institution.

Some people believe that Vance’s Trump Doctrine is correct. Clifford May, the founder and head of Washington’s Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, said that Vance has accurately summarized President Trump’s strategy in recent days on the Middle East crisis.

“The majority of historians and outside commentators may believe that the word ‘doctrine’ is too soon. However, that would be a fantastic doctrine for President Trump to brag about if he builds on this effective use of U.S. power,” May said.
However, the outcome of the ongoing battle will probably determine whether the new framework is adopted.

Rebecca Lissner, an analyst at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that it is premature to “pronounce either that this was a brilliant success or that it was a massive strategic failure.”
“We need to see how the diplomacy plays out and where we actually land in terms of constraint, visibility, and survival of the Iranian nuclear program.”