By Steve Holland and David Brunnstrom
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - With his order for B-2 bombers to strike Iranian nuclear sites on Sunday, President Donald Trump swerved away from his usual reluctance to use military force, directly involving the U.S. in a foreign war and alarming many of his "America First" supporters.
Now, the thinking behind his decision has a name, according to Vice President JD Vance: the Trump Doctrine.
Vance laid out the elements in remarks on Tuesday: articulate a clear American interest, try to solve a problem with diplomacy, and, if that fails, "use overwhelming military power to solve it and then you get the hell out of there before it ever becomes a protracted conflict."
To some observers, however, the new doctrine sounds like an effort to offer a tidy framework to describe a foreign policy that often looks unpredictable and inconsistent.
"It's hard for me to relate seriously to something called the 'Trump Doctrine,'" said Middle East analyst Aaron David Miller, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
"I don't think Trump has a doctrine. I think Trump has only held instincts."
Trump's decision to get involved in the conflict between Israel and Iran came after Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei said Iran would not give up its ability to enrich uranium. Soon after the U.S. strikes, Trump announced a ceasefire, which has mostly held.
On Wednesday, Trump vowed again that Iran would not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and said talks with Tehran would resume next week. Iran has said its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only.
“President Trump and Vice President Vance are the perfect team because they share the same ‘peace through strength’ vision for U.S. foreign policy," said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly in response to a request for comment.
MAGA WORRIES
Trump faces pressure to explain his decision to intervene in the Israel-Iran conflict. Vance, who previously embraced isolationism, has been one of the administration's main messengers on the issue.
Trump helped win over voters by arguing that the "stupid" U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had left the United States in a quagmire and that he would work to avoid foreign entanglements.
He has mostly stuck to the pledge, with some exceptions: the use of American forces against Houthi rebels launching attacks from Yemen this year, and his orders to kill ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in 2019 and Iranian Revolutionary Guard commander Qasem Soleimani in January 2020.
But the prospect of the United States getting dragged into an extended conflict with Iran angered many in the isolationist wing of the Republican Party, including prominent Trump supporters like strategist Steve Bannon and conservative media personality Tucker Carlson.
Opinion polling also reflects deep concern among Americans about what might come next.
Some 79% of Americans surveyed in a Reuters/Ipsos poll that closed on Monday said they worried "that Iran may target U.S. civilians in response to the U.S. airstrikes."
Melanie Sisson, a senior foreign policy fellow at the Brookings Institution, said Vance appears to be trying to satisfy Trump's right flank by "trying to figure out how to explain how and why the administration can undertake a military action without it being a prelude to war."
To some, Vance's Trump Doctrine rings true.
"Vance has provided an accurate summary of President Trump's approach over recent days to the conflict in the Middle East," said Clifford May, founder and president of Washington's Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank.
"Most outside analysts, and certainly most historians, may think the term 'doctrine' is premature. But if President Trump builds on this successful use of U.S. force, it would be a tremendous doctrine for President Trump to boast," May added.
Still, whether the new framework sticks will likely depend on how the current conflict ends.
It is too soon to “pronounce either that this was a brilliant success or that it was a massive strategic failure," said Rebecca Lissner, an expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.
"We need to see how the diplomacy plays out and where we actually land in terms of constraint, visibility and survival of the Iranian nuclear program."
(Reporting By Steve Holland and David Brunnstrom; additional reporting by Jason Lange and Jarrett Renshaw; Editing by Don Durfee and Lincoln Feast.)
