U.S. foreign policy during the second term of President Donald Trump witnessed a shift from the policy of “maximum pressure,” which focused on increasing the economic cost on targeted regimes to change their strategic behavior, toward direct military intervention. The “maximum pressure” approach had previously appeared in the case of Iran through the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and the re-imposition of broad sanctions on energy, banking, and transportation sectors. It also appeared in the case of Venezuela through asset freezes, bans on dealings with the national oil company, and the recognition of opposition leader Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019.
However, this U.S. approach did not achieve the desired results. The expected internal collapse in these states did not occur, and the United States confronted entrenched political systems built on nationalist, religious, or ideological foundations. In addition, these countries increasingly developed the ability to adapt to and circumvent sanctions.
As a result, the current U.S. administration shifted toward the use of hard power to reset the rules of engagement, marking a clear transformation in its external behavior. In this context, the forced removal of political leadership became, from Trump’s perspective, a legitimate tool to reshape domestic and international balances in a way that serves American interests.
Trump’s Approach
The cases of Venezuela and Iran reveal several features illustrating the changes that occurred in U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s second term. These can be outlined as follows:
1. Changing Political Regimes Through Military Force
Statements by Trump supporting Iranian protesters, followed by military escalation that led to the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Iranian leaders, reflected a clear shift from a policy of pressure and deterrence to an approach aimed at regime change in Iran through force. This strategy seeks to produce a radical political transformation through airstrikes and potentially special operations.
Such a strategy carries high strategic risks, especially in the case of a geographically distant state with a complex security and military structure like Iran. This raises questions about the prospects of a ground intervention—an option that several U.S. military assessments have warned against due to its potential human cost and the possibility of failure.
Consequently, Trump retreated from the objective of overthrowing the Iranian regime, while his administration maintained that—even if not a preferred goal—it remained a realistic possibility. In this context, the Venezuelan model was presented as a precedent that could be replicated from Washington’s perspective. The U.S. operation in Caracas resulted in the removal of former president Nicolás Maduro while preserving the core structure of the government—an arrangement closer to redirecting the regime rather than dismantling it.
However, drawing parallels with Venezuela may overlook several differences, including Iran’s military capabilities, its network of regional proxies, its nuclear ambitions, and deep social and historical complexities—all factors that could make externally engineered political restructuring in Iran far more difficult and costly.
2. Breaking Traditional Boundaries in the Use of Force
The pattern of military force under Trump reflects a departure from the traditional foundations that shaped U.S. military behavior since the end of the Vietnam War—particularly principles associated with the Powell Doctrine, which views war as a last resort, contingent upon a clear political objective, a defined exit strategy, public support, and decisive use of force to avoid prolonged attrition.
In contrast, Trump’s interventions during both his first and second terms reflected an operational mindset that views military power as a flexible instrument to reshape the strategic environment, rather than an emergency option used only after exhausting diplomatic means.
This was evident in a series of operations ranging from strikes against the former Syrian regime, to the targeting of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani, and eventually to broader military operations in Iran and limited actions in Venezuela. In many cases, negotiations had not been fully pursued, nor were public ultimatums issued as had occurred in previous historical precedents.
Thus, the use of military force was no longer the result of political alternatives failing, but rather a preemptive tool designed to maximize the element of surprise, redefining the relationship between diplomacy and military action in contemporary U.S. strategy.
3. Absence of Clear Objectives
The Trump administration’s approach to military force has been marked by conceptual ambiguity and fluctuating objectives. In the Iranian case, the stated justifications ranged from preventing nuclear proliferation and defending the American people from imminent threats to promoting regional and global peace, and even hinting at regime change followed by negotiations with an alternative leadership.
Yet these shifting narratives lacked a coherent strategic framework clearly defining the nature of the Iranian threat or the post-regime-change scenario.
A similar pattern appeared in the Venezuelan case, where rhetoric moved from linking intervention to migration, drug trafficking, and border security issues to pursuing political leadership and controlling oil resources, even reviving new interpretations of the Monroe Doctrine. The result was a multiplicity of narratives without clarity regarding final objectives.
This ambiguity intensified due to the absence of explicit authorization from the U.S. Congress and the sudden launch of operations through unexpected pathways, making it difficult to determine what the United States actually sought to achieve or how success or failure should be measured.
4. The Contradiction Between Negotiation and Military Escalation
Although the Trump administration repeatedly stated that the best American option was an agreement ending Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, U.S. negotiations with Iran occurred simultaneously with large-scale military mobilization.
Without deep domestic debate or clear congressional backing, a contradiction emerged between a discourse favoring diplomacy and field actions approaching preemptive strikes and war.
In other words, combining calls for negotiation with threats of broad military action—and even launching war while negotiations were ongoing—reveals not only conflicting uses of foreign policy tools but also a structural flaw in strategic decision-making, where power dynamics overshadow the logic of compromise.
5. Departure from Campaign Promises
A comparison between Trump’s campaign rhetoric and his foreign policies reveals fundamental contradictions. During his campaign, Trump presented himself as a candidate opposed to “wars of choice,” openly criticizing the interventionist tendencies of neoconservatives and rejecting costly foreign conflicts lacking broad public support.
However, adopting direct military options in both the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere marked a departure from those promises toward a more assertive reliance on military power.
6. Policies Still in Development
The future of Venezuela remains uncertain following Maduro’s arrest, with the United States moving toward temporary administration of the country and reconstruction of its oil sector through investments estimated at $100 billion. This raises concerns about political instability and long-term American dominance, suggesting that U.S. foreign policy remains a work in progress.
A similar uncertainty surrounds Iran less than a year after the American strike in June 2025, which Trump insisted had destroyed Iranian nuclear facilities, yet with no clear post-war vision.
Interpretative Approaches
Several factors may explain the transformation in U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s presidency in light of the cases of Venezuela and Iran.
1. Revival of Traditional Imperial Logic
The external behavior of the Trump administration reflects a shift from the United States acting as a hegemonic power within a liberal international order toward a model resembling traditional imperial power.
Arresting foreign political leaders, controlling oil resources, imposing coercive sanctions, conducting large military mobilizations, and repeatedly threatening the use of force reflect an expansionist tendency that contradicts narratives about limiting foreign commitments.
This tendency is reinforced by ideological discourse from senior officials in the administration, particularly Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who revived narratives of Western expansion and argued that the decline of empires resulted from anti-colonial independence movements. He called for a civilizational alliance to restore confidence in Western heritage.
In this context, the United States appears to be reshaping the international system according to a unilateral hegemonic vision, where alliances and military tools serve an imperial-style project rather than merely defending sovereignty under the slogan “America First.”
2. Preference for the Military Instrument
The transformation in U.S. foreign policy cannot be explained solely by tactical considerations or leadership personality traits. It also reflects a structural tendency within the U.S. decision-making system to favor military instruments when managing crises.
Despite Trump’s rhetoric promising to end “endless wars,” practice revealed continuity in a strategic pattern that keeps military force readily available—even when diplomatic or economic alternatives exist.
This reflects the belief that restoring deterrence and international credibility sometimes requires direct military action, even at the expense of domestic consensus. Institutional links between political elites, national security institutions, and the military-industrial complex further reduce the political cost of using force, creating a cycle in which war becomes a routine tool of international policy rather than a last resort.
3. Possible Division of Spheres of Influence
Trump-era foreign policy may indicate a revival of great-power spheres of influence. Signals suggest implicit American recognition of Russian interests in the former Soviet space in exchange for strengthening Washington’s presence in the Western Hemisphere.
In Asia, U.S. relations with China combine intense competition with pragmatic recognition of power balance. The trade war between the two powers involved escalating tariffs that eventually led to negotiated understandings.
Although China publicly rejects the concept of spheres of influence as a colonial legacy, its behavior in the South China Sea and efforts to reduce U.S. military presence suggest a preference for establishing a regional security sphere comparable to Washington’s ambitions in its own continental space.
Thus, the international system may be moving toward an informal distribution of influence among the United States, Russia, and China—allowing Russia dominance in the former Soviet region, the United States influence in the Western Hemisphere and the Middle East, and China primacy in the South China Sea.
4. Weak Commitment to Legal Norms
The U.S. intervention in Venezuela and the war against Iran occurred without authorization from the United Nations, indicating a gradual shift from a rules-based international system toward one where international law functions more as a negotiable framework than a binding authority.
In other words, international law is being redefined from a regulatory system governing state behavior into a selective instrument used when it aligns with the strategic interests of major powers.
5. Appealing to the American Domestic Audience
Trump explicitly linked foreign policy to domestic objectives during his second term. His administration presented the use of force in the Caribbean and the removal of Maduro as law-enforcement operations, alongside domestic measures such as mass deportations of migrants.
Tariffs were portrayed as necessary to generate revenue from abroad, reduce taxes, encourage domestic production, and create jobs for Americans. Similarly, cuts in foreign aid and withdrawal from certain international organizations were framed as measures to redirect resources toward American citizens.
Conclusion
In light of the above, U.S. foreign policy during Trump’s presidency reflects a redefinition of the role of military power in American strategy. The use of force is no longer merely the result of failed negotiations; rather, it has become a parallel option—and sometimes a preceding one.
Consequently, military power has evolved into a framework that generates strategic options and defines the limits of negotiation.
