Recent days have upended decades of assumptions about U.S. foreign policy, the use and role of military force, and America’s role in the world. President Donald Trump’s decisive strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities—followed by a unilateral ceasefire demand—haven’t only defused a looming regional war but also a false choice between non-interventionism and regime change. For this, Trump arguably deserves the Nobel Peace Prize.
Since the failures of Iraq and Afghanistan, and increasingly since the Israel-Hamas war, Western diplomacy has been dominated by a reflexive preference for de-escalation. The default response to crises, from Syria to North Korea, has been negotiation, even when dealing with bad-faith actors developing atomic weapons. The strike on Iran’s nuclear program and the subsequent ceasefire brokered by Trump represents a sharp departure from this consensus.
He rejected the claims from non-interventionists like Tucker Carlson and regime change champions like John Bolton alike. His approach involved a limited yet decisive military strike that denuded Iran’s nuclear capabilities without committing the United States to a costly and undefined military campaign.
By asserting American primacy rather than negotiating a nuclear detente from a position of weakness, the Trump administration has seemingly produced an outcome that was hitherto inconceivable: Iran’s enrichment capabilities degraded, its military leadership decimated, and a conflict that many feared would spiral into regional war abruptly halted. The lack of response from other competing powers like Russia and China underscores that claims about the end of American unipolarity are wrong.
What distinguishes this case in particular is how American power has been exercised. This isn’t a foreign policy rooted in grand strategy or normative assumptions about liberalism or democracy or other high-minded ideals. It’s transactional, contingent, and unapologetically focused on American interests. Trump’s amoralism can be ugly, but it’s also proven to be quite effective.
By treating force not as a last resort but as a powerful surgical tool, he achieved what years of diplomacy could not with regards to Iran: the defenestration of the nuclear weapons program of the Islamic Republic and the end of its military intimidation of the region on terms highly favourable to the U.S. and its allies. The contrast with the Obama administration’s Iran nuclear deal is stark. Where Obama sought to constrain Iran through incentives, Trump did so with decisive action—and, for now, the latter has yielded a more tangible outcome.
The implications of this shift extend far beyond the Middle East. Allies and adversaries alike are recalibrating their strategies in real time. For nations like Canada, the lesson is particularly stark. The currency of this new era is power—military, economic, and strategic—and countries that lack leverage now face a sobering reality. In a world where outcomes are dictated by raw strength, soft power alone may no longer suffice.
Even domestically, the political landscape has shifted. Trump, who entered this crisis with faltering approval ratings, now stands emboldened. His base, drawn to displays of strength, is likely to be re-energized. But more critically, there are many beyond his core supporters who will acknowledge that he tackled a problem declared intractable by the foreign policy establishment—and succeeded.
The most provocative question raised by this episode is whether Trump deserves the Nobel Peace Prize. On its face, the idea seems absurd to his critics. Yet by neutralizing an existential threat—delaying, if not eliminating, the prospect of an Iranian bomb—he’s arguably done more for global security in days than decades of diplomacy achieved.
An Image of the U.S. and Israeli flags is projected on the walls of Jerusalem’s Old City, Sunday, July 22, 2025. Following the U.S. involvement in the war between Israel and Iran. (AP Photo/Mahmoud Illean)
The parallel to Reagan is apt. Reagan rejected the notion that the U.S. had to accommodate the Soviet Union, insisting instead on victory. Trump has done the same with Iran.
These events have revealed a simple truth: American power, when assertively deployed, remains unparalleled. The “declinist” narratives that emerged after the financial crisis—the rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, the impotence of the West—have been abruptly interrupted. Trump’s actions remind the world that the U.S. is still the “indispensable power,” capable of shaping outcomes through sheer force of will.
But this isn’t the benevolent hegemony of the 1990s. It is a harder, more self-interested version of American leadership—one that prizes interests over principles and results over rhetoric. The challenge for allies is to adapt to this new reality. The challenge for the world is to reckon with the fact that, for all its chaos and controversy, the Trump Doctrine has just rewritten the rules of the game. Love him or loathe him, history will remember these last 72 hours. And for now, at least, Trump is winning.
Generative AI assisted in the production of this article.
