What is the true essence of Donald Trump: is it isolationist or interventionist? If you really look for an answer to the question, and not a confirmation to prejudice, the American history and that of its presidents must be questioned. So only the short conflict between Trump and Iran can be understood. At least since the middle of the last century, when history knocks on the door, the president of the United States of America is neither isolationist nor interventionist. It is first of all a commander in front of his responsibility. Roosevelt promised to his voters that American boys would never land in Europe. But after Pearl Harbor he attached himself with Churchill and Stalin against the third Reich. George W. Bush had presented himself as the human face of the Republican Party: Compassionate Conservatism. In the aftermath of 11 September, however, it turned into the hammer of the West into an asymmetrical war. Barack Obama, Nobel Prize winner for peace, authorized a Raid record with drones and wanted to affix its autograph on Bin Laden’s killing. In short, a rule of jacksonism remains imperishable: America affects only when it considers it necessary but when it does, it leaves its mark. You can also introduce yourself as the outsider who wants to keep America out of the world. But if you live in the White House, the world is looking for you. And you can’t pretend anything. On the other hand, it should not be forgotten that in 2020 the president Trump had blew up the bench with Iran. He ordered, then, to vaporize the convoy in Baghdad that escorted the general Iranian Soleimani, head of the Qods forces, the Elite of the Pasdaran. This time he did more. He hit the most important war infrastructure, not a symbolic target: nuclear sites, the heart of the regime. And again has the debate exploded on its true essence: isolationist or interventionist?
In this regard, all the presidents had to take into account their followers. And also in this Trump it is no exception although, to fulfill the task, it is known how to transform into a sort of geopolitical illusionist. The first to applaud the operation against Tehran, in fact, were the neo -ons, recognizing a resolve that no president had shown towards the Ayatollah. While to remain displaced, the loyal sorceress: those convinced that this is not our war; who believed in the hallway and found themselves making a good face in the truce with the supreme guide Khamenei. Digital Trumpists – bloggers, comedians, youtubers, influencers – instead, have made a pirouette worthy of the Cirque du Soleil. Yesterday they thundered against the infinite wars, today flood the network of flaming eagles and flags in the wind. Their devotion is algorithmic: like every self -respecting king, Trump never misses.
Not everything, however, is so simple. And among the things that are less for Trump, the relationship with the vice -president Vance must be enrolled. Ex marine in Irak, always hostile to every new Middle Eastern adventure, “JD” was clear: no change of regime under this administration. But the president, in response, tweeted an ironic: “It is not politically correct to use the term change of regime, but if the current Iranian regime is unable to make Iran again great, why shouldn’t there be a regime change?
Trump, this time, managed to keep peace and war in the balance. A result that relaunches the real unresolved question: what deep America is there really behind him? Maybe they are two. One is that told by Vance made of veterans, closed factories and shattered communities, which dreams of the redemption in the start-up nation protected by artificial intelligence and traditional hearth.
The other, older, pulsates under the declaration of independence and sees a universal mission in freedom. The president, evoking on 4th July of Tehran, gave her back to her. Not with a great speech like Lincoln in Gettysburg but through a simple tweet.
