“Viewpoints” is a place on Chapelboro where local people are encouraged to share their unique perspectives on issues affecting our community. All thoughts, ideas, opinions and expressions in this series are those of the author, and do not reflect the work, reporting or approval of 97.9 The Hill and Chapelboro.com. If you’d like to contribute a column on an issue you’re concerned about, interesting happenings around town, reflections on local life — or anything else — send a submission to viewpoints@wchl.com.
Trump’s Policy Style: Realpolitik or Just Bad Management?
A perspective from Nathan Boucher
Donald Trump is back in the Oval Office, and with him comes the same storm of disruption and unpredictability that defined his first term. His defenders cast him as a realist—a bold, transactional leader who discards diplomatic niceties in favor of protecting American interests. But as his administration lurches from one explosive decision to the next—including, most recently, a controversial bombing campaign against Iranian military sites—the question must be asked: Is this realpolitik, or simply bad management dressed up as strategy?
The answer is becoming increasingly clear. While Trump’s foreign policy has the appearance of hard-nosed realism, it consistently reveals itself to be impulsive, reactive, and poorly coordinated. The bombing of Iran exemplifies this dangerous pattern.
The Iran Strikes: Strategy or Spectacle?
Trump orders a targeted bombing campaign on Iranian Revolutionary Guard facilities earlier this month, claiming it is in response to Tehran’s alleged role in arming proxies that killed U.S. contractors in Iraq. The strikes are dramatic, sudden, and framed as decisive. Trump says he is sending a message that attacks on American personnel will not be tolerated.
But almost immediately, the operation triggers confusion among allies and even within the U.S. government. There is no clear articulation of objectives. Are these strikes meant to deter Iran broadly, to punish specific actors, or to spark regime recalculation? The Pentagon reportedly receives less than 48 hours of formal planning time, and key European allies are informed only after the bombs fall. Iran retaliates with missile fire near U.S. bases in Syria, and tensions escalate further in the Strait of Hormuz.
If this is realpolitik, it’s reckless. Realpolitik is about carefully calculated force—using power in pursuit of defined, achievable goals. Trump’s Iran strategy, by contrast, seems reactive and opaque. He offers no roadmap, no diplomatic backchannel, no endgame. Instead, the bombing looks like a show of force aimed more at the evening news cycle—and perhaps his political base—than at altering Iranian behavior in a sustainable way.
Realpolitik Misunderstood
Realpolitik, at its core, is the pursuit of national interest through practical, sometimes ruthless, means. Nixon’s triangulation between China and the Soviet Union. Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy. These were actions rooted in long-term strategic thinking, not impulse.
Trump borrows the language of realpolitik— “strength,” “America First,” “we don’t apologize”—but he discards the structure. His foreign policy lacks internal discipline and often contradicts itself. Within days of the Iran bombing, Trump posts to social media that he “hopes Iran learns a lesson,” then in the same breath says he is open to talks “without preconditions.” His press secretary walks back the latter comment. Officials in the State Department give conflicting statements about future military engagement.
This isn’t strategic ambiguity; it’s bureaucratic incoherence.
NATO: Bluster Over Strategy
Trump’s second-term foreign policy is marked not just by military action, but by his continued assault on alliances. He again threatens to pull out of NATO unless allies increase defense spending and publicly questions whether the U.S. would defend nations he sees as “freeloaders.”
The logic may sound realist—why subsidize others’ defense? —but his methods alienate allies instead of extracting concessions. Quiet diplomacy and conditional leverage are replaced by televised threats and public humiliation. Unsurprisingly, Europe is now accelerating talks of a more independent defense policy—something that plays directly into Russian strategic aims.
In true realpolitik, alliances are tools. Trump treats them as burdens—unless the spotlight is on him.
China and the Art of Mixed Messaging
Trump’s posture toward China remains erratic. He imposes new tariffs on rare earth materials and bans additional tech exports, calling it a necessary defense of U.S. sovereignty. At the same time, he praises Xi Jinping as a “strong leader” and downplays human rights violations in Xinjiang and Hong Kong.
The problem isn’t the recognition that China is a competitor. That’s a bipartisan consensus. The problem is that Trump’s tools—trade, tech, diplomacy—are used inconsistently. One week he cracks down on Chinese cyber activity; the next week he floats a surprise “deal” that has no visible terms or enforcement mechanism.
There’s no comprehensive doctrine. There’s a series of moves, often triggered by headlines or political calculation, rather than long-term statecraft. It’s not realpolitik. It’s reactive politics, improvisation at the helm of superpower diplomacy.
Ukraine: Leverage Gone Wrong
In Ukraine, Trump continues to frame military aid not as a tool of deterrence but as a political weapon. He recently suggests on national television that if European nations don’t pay more into the conflict, he might consider “stepping back” from support. That’s not leverage—it’s abandonment as a bargaining chip.
Realists understand the utility of Ukraine as a bulwark against Russian expansion. Trump’s actions, however, send a message that U.S. commitments are conditional on unrelated political favors or domestic optics. This doesn’t make America stronger; it weakens trust in U.S. guarantees worldwide.
Domestic Chaos, Not Calculated Control
Trump’s governing style is no more structured at home. He continues to purge career civil servants through his Schedule F plan, replacing experts with loyalists.
Meanwhile, Trump’s push to “streamline” federal agencies results in mass confusion across departments. Immigration policy changes roll out without legal review. Economic policy pivots based on cable news coverage. Regulatory agencies contradict each other.
This isn’t realpolitik. It’s management breakdown. A true realist leader surrounds themselves with competence and channels bureaucracy into decisive action. Trump sees bureaucracy as an enemy—and then seems surprised when his policies fail to materialize as planned.
Management by Grievance
Trump’s version of governance is deeply personal. Policy decisions often appear tied to grudges or flattery. He continues to praise autocrats like Viktor Orbán and Vladimir Putin while lambasting leaders from democratic allies like Germany and Canada.
When policy is driven by personality rather than interest, realpolitik turns into what some now call personalpolitik. The bombing of Iran, for example, comes just days after reports circulate that Trump was enraged by Tehran’s mockery of him on state media. That may not be the direct cause—but it fits the pattern. Punish your enemies. Reward those who praise you.
It’s not strategy. It’s impulse governance.
Conclusion: Realpolitik Demands Discipline
Donald Trump may think he’s executing realpolitik—being tough, unpredictable, and unburdened by ideals. But true realpolitik requires more than a willingness to act ruthlessly. It requires clarity of goals, consistency of execution, and an understanding of how to balance risk with reward.
The recent bombing of Iran shows what happens when these principles are ignored. It provokes without persuading, escalates without settling, and endangers without advancing any clear objective. It may look like strength—but it’s the strength of a flailing captain, not a chess master.
At home and abroad, Trump’s second term is not defined by realism. It is defined by managerial chaos, emotional decision-making, and a deep mistrust of the very systems designed to help presidents govern effectively.
Realpolitik is cold. Trump is hot-headed. Realpolitik is about state interest. Trump is too often about self-interest.
And that makes all the difference.
Dr. Nathan Boucher is Associate Professor of Medicine, Nursing, and Public Policy at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, USA.
“Viewpoints” on Chapelboro is a recurring series of community-submitted opinion columns. All thoughts, ideas, opinions and expressions in this series are those of the author, and do not reflect the work or reporting of 97.9 The Hill and Chapelboro.com.
