The exhilaration of victory has once again emboldened Donald Trump, the returning President of the United States. Fresh from his electoral conquest, he now revels in the illusion that his words translate directly into action, that his vision will manifest unchallenged. Yet, this is the dangerous mirage of power in which Trump now dwells.
Undeniably, he is a seasoned real estate mogul, adept at striking deals in business, finance, and even some political arenas. But ambition has its limits—bound by history and geography, constraints that no leader, no matter how forceful, can defy. In his inaugural address, Trump expressed a desire to be remembered as a peacemaker rather than a warmonger. Yet, his second-term agenda reveals grandiose aspirations: annexing Canada and Greenland, renaming the Gulf of Mexico, reclaiming control over the Panama Canal, and escalating tensions with China and in the Ukraine conflict. Among his more audacious proposals is his suggestion that Saudi Arabia should be his first foreign visit—if he can secure a deal worth half a trillion dollars, a figure that ballooned to an astonishing trillion in an inexplicable public auction.
Perhaps his most reckless—or, at the very least, most ignorant—proposal is the expectation that Egypt and Jordan accept over two million displaced residents of war-torn Gaza, whether temporarily or permanently, until the region can be rebuilt into a “global resort.” Such an idea is beyond serious discussion, for rational minds cannot entertain sheer fantasy, no matter the proponent.
It is no wonder that former US presidents, seasoned in the art of governance, met Trump’s speech with derisive laughter. They understand that politics is not a mere series of transactions but a relentless battleground of historical, geographical, and ideological conflicts. America’s ambitions are not divine mandates; many have collapsed before they could even take shape beyond the walls of the White House—Vietnam being only the first in a long line of sobering historical lessons.
Throughout his political career, Trump has branded himself as an unpredictable force. Even after four years in office, analysts remain uncertain about how he intends to navigate foreign policy in his second term. This ambiguity is no accident; it is precisely the image he cultivates. From his 2016 campaign onward, he touted unpredictability as a strategic asset, asserting, “As a nation, we need to be more unpredictable in what we seek.” When asked in 2024 how he would respond to a Chinese blockade of Taiwan, he replied, “I won’t have to. President Xi Jinping respects me and knows that I’m crazy.” Even his running mate, J.D. Vance, reinforced the perception: “As both his critics and supporters say, Trump is unpredictable.”
Trump’s first term was a case study in erratic diplomacy. He threatened North Korean leader Kim Jong-un with “fire and fury like the world has never seen”—only to later meet him personally, claiming the two had “fallen in love.” He approved a military strike on Iran before abruptly cancelling it. He imposed tariffs on allies like Canada while simultaneously courting America’s traditional adversaries. During trade negotiations with South Korea, he instructed his team to project an image of volatility, warning, “This man is crazy enough to walk away at any moment.”
This strategy is not new. The “Madman Theory”—the idea that erratic behaviour can intimidate opponents into submission—has been employed by world leaders for decades. Cold War strategists even advocated applying it to communist adversaries, hoping to lend credibility to US nuclear threats. But history has shown that the theory often collapses under scrutiny. To be effective, a leader must strike a delicate balance: appearing unhinged enough to instil fear, yet rational enough to be taken seriously in negotiations.
However, the Madman Theory’s track record is filled with failure. Richard Nixon’s attempt to convince the North Vietnamese and their Soviet backers that he was irrational failed to prevent America’s eventual withdrawal from Vietnam. Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s theatrical nuclear threats—shouting, gesticulating, and pounding tables—failed to force the US into retreat during the Berlin Crisis. The theory has even been tested in the Arab world, with Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi among its most notorious practitioners—both of whom met their demise.
The fundamental flaw of the Madman Theory is its inherent paradox: it is nearly impossible for any leader—especially one with control over nuclear weapons—to genuinely convince opponents that they are truly unhinged and capable of absolute recklessness. Consider Vladimir Putin’s threats of nuclear retaliation over Western support for Ukraine; they failed to alter Western policies because nuclear weapons function primarily as deterrents, not instruments of irrational aggression.
Trump may be a fortunate man, determined to manufacture his own luck. Now that he has reclaimed the Oval Office, he perceives a geopolitical landscape ripe for reshaping. His adversaries are weakened: Iran has been subdued following the collapse of the “Axis of Resistance” and the fall of Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. Russia remains entangled in an unwinnable war, its resources depleted. China, facing economic struggles and internal unrest, is in no position for global dominance. With his signature tactical bravado, unpredictability, and transactional mindset, Trump sees a rare opening to redefine global power structures—perhaps even securing a legacy comparable to Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan.
Now, he stands before history with the opportunity to transform the Middle East, steering it away from decades of Arab-Israeli conflict and toward an era of collective security and economic cooperation. But success requires rationality and mutually acceptable compromises. The question remains: will Trump temper his erratic nature to navigate these complexities, or will his penchant for chaos lead him into unprecedented turmoil? The immutable forces of history, geography, and law cannot be willed away. If Trump can wield his unpredictability with strategic precision, he may yet leave a lasting mark. But should he descend into sheer irrationality, he will achieve none of his grand ambitions—only to be met once again by the laughter of those who see through the folly of a man who confuses unpredictability with power.
Dr. Hatem Sadek – Professor at Helwan University
