Last month, Donald Trump was selected as Time magazine's Person of the Year – “The person who, for better or worse, has done the most to shape the world and the headlines over the past 12 months.” This designation does not judge whether a candidate's historical role is good or bad, only that it is “consequential.”
Adolf Hitler named Man of the Year By 1999, Time magazine recognized that women could also contribute, and the award was changed to: person of the year. President Trump will soon begin his second four-year term as commander-in-chief, but within that limited time he could earn the title of “Man of the Century” (at least for the first quarter of this century) There will be.
His term in office is virtually certain to be a momentous one, given the need to respond to the international challenges looming over the United States today, with new axes of evil such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. be. Whether Trump's presidency will be a benefit or detriment to America and the world will depend on how he responds to these outside forces.
President Trump will either seize the opportunity that history presents him to change the world for the better, or he will pass it up and watch the chaos ensue. His historical reputation will be determined by the strategic choices he makes now. If one or more of the four tyrannical regimes that have long plagued the world are not removed from power or dramatically change their behavior, war and chaos will ensue and perpetuate his legacy. It's going to get dirty. Or maybe his presidency will be celebrated by a grateful world and crowned with a Nobel Peace Prize.
The prospects for reform vary widely across the four regimes, and any likely outcome cannot be predicted with any degree of certainty. But each could be influenced by brave and wise U.S. policies that combine rewards and punishments, and could be pushed along important reform paths.
Some observers were concerned about America's erratic foreign policy, particularly toward Afghanistan and Ukraine. Projected an image of confusion and weakness It invites further overreach by the enemy. As history has shown, strategic miscalculations can lead to major conflicts. The specter of World War III had already been dashed by both of America's first 2024 presidential candidates, albeit on different rationales.
President Biden warned in February 2022 that President Vladimir Putin, who successfully captured eastern Ukraine and Crimea in 2014 during the Obama-Biden administration, was planning to launch the next phase of an invasion of Ukraine. Asked whether the United States would intervene militarily even if a minimal no-fly zone was established over Ukraine, he quickly denied that possibility, declaring: “That's World War III.” For the next three years of the war, he repeated his horrified response every time he was asked about America's more vigorous response to the Russian invasion.
President Trump has repeatedly criticized Biden, even for the modest arms aid he provided to Ukraine, accusing him of: “It led us into World War III.”
Time magazine announced that it named Trump the most important person in the world during this period. explained his foreign policy approach: “President Trump has blamed the country's decline on economic interdependence, transnational criminals, and traditional allies he sees as free riders on America's longstanding global benevolence. The United States has promised to attack foreign intelligence sources. …Eager to overturn the country's postwar role as a bulwark against authoritarianism, he has promised to introduce a foreign policy rooted in 'America first' transactionalism and Trump. None of the president's expected responses will deter further aggressive actions by America's self-proclaimed enemies.
With the right U.S. approach to supporting the Iranian people, the Tehran regime will most likely transform from clerical authoritarianism to political tolerance and democratic reform. The Iranian people demonstrated their commitment to political change. Massive demonstrations occurred in 2009when mostly young Iranian protesters passionately appealed for American support. The Obama-Biden administration has rejected US involvement, but the incoming Trump team may be more inclined to cooperate.
Trump strongly opposes the Obama-Biden nuclear deal. finished it in his first term. Although Mr. Biden's national renewal efforts have stalled, there is still time to eliminate him on behalf of the international community before the final screw is turned on the nuclear weapons program. As John Kirby's press secretary said“President Biden has made it clear that Iran does not have such a capability. We tried to achieve this through diplomacy. Obviously, the Iranians were not willing to negotiate in good faith, so it worked. All other options remain available to the president.”
These options have expanded thanks to the severe deterioration of Iran's security situation over the past year. of israel significant decrease of Tehran's allies and proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah, and more recently of the Houthis. catastrophic reaction Iran's missile attacks on Israel have left Iran vulnerable to a coup d'état by a joint Israeli and US attack. Minimizing outside involvement beyond the destruction of Iran's nuclear weapons program will allow Iranians to address domestic governance issues.
The challenge of regime change in communist China is a longer-term project than in Iran, but it could be shortened by trade and economic measures already being considered by President Trump, which he has been working on since his first term. This is an activist policy that has begun to be implemented. U.S. and international support for much-needed governance reforms in Russia and North Korea is justified by their joint international aggression in Ukraine. It will need to be initiated by the nationals of those countries. We need international support in many forms Adapted to each person's specific situation, especially in the area of strategic communication. Iran's precedent will help show the way.
Joseph Bosco served as the Secretary of Defense's Director of China Affairs from 2005 to 2006 and Director of the Asia-Pacific Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief from 2009 to 2010. He is an adjunct fellow at the Institute for Korean American Studies and a member of the Advisory Board of the Global Taiwan Institute and the Advisory Board of the Vandenberg Coalition..
