The Madman Theory
Please join Rachael Bade, Sean Spicer, and me for The Huddle, weekdays at 8:30 AM EST, on YouTube (please subscribe), where you can also stream at your convenience. If you prefer to listen as a podcast, we are on Apple or Spotify.
Enjoy politics and history, and like reading and discussing books about either? Join For The Love of Politics, A Bipartisan Book Club. Every other Wednesday evening, we will meet on Zoom to review a new book. Next up, April 15, What It Takes, by Richard Ben Cramer, which chronicles the grueling slog of the 1988 presidential race. Subscribe by clicking on the link above.
Easter morning, Americans awoke to a profane warning from President Trump to Iran that they “open the F$#kin’ Strait, you crazy bastards, or you’ll be living in Hell.” While such language is obviously unbecoming of a Christian on Easter, the post set off the usual chain reaction of Democrats screaming in horror and Republicans cheering - with MAGA’s praise public and the Bush and Reagan crowd ignoring the “how” and privately smiling at the “what.”
Over the course of the proceeding 48 hours, both on Truth Social and at the podium, President Trump amped up the intensity and frequency of his warnings to Iran. What is interesting is how much thought is given by critics to whether Trump has lost his mind and how little serious thought is given to the strategic value of the Madman Theory.
The Madman Theory holds that a leader intentionally acts irrational, erratic, or unstable to make an opponent believe they might take extreme, unpredictable actions to intimate and achieve concessions.
Throughout his business and political career, Trump has used this tactic to great success. Understanding binary leverage, Trump positions, squeezes, and then tries to extract the best possible deal. Love him or hate him, to use a football metaphor, the result is usually a slow movement of the goal post from mid-field to closer to Trump’s liking, producing either a field goal or sometimes a touchdown.
In his second term, Trump has taken the Madman Theory a step further and proactively used military force when deemed necessary, such as in Iran last July, Venezuela in January, and recently again in Iran.
Trump is clearly frustrated at the inability to bring the war in Iran to a conclusion. Inpatient, he has shoved chips into the middle of the table, attempting to break the regime with threats of biblical proportion. I suspect, if necessary, he will unleash the first wave or two of the bombardment “back to the stone ages.” The question is what happens if Iran still does not blink or offer sufficient concessions?
Sean Spicer talks frequently on The Huddle about “the other side” of Trump from the strong, tough persona, the side that does not like to see women and children suffering. Images of this nature hit Trump hard and can move him to a different place. Trump is also sensitive to his Party’s - and thus, his - political standing, knowing that a Democratic House and/or Senate his last two years will be miserable.
The one liability of the Madman Theory is that, if resistance persists and you continue to either move deadlines and threaten tomorrow, or do not follow through, you lose credibility and leverage. To state the obvious, such a result would be horrible for American power and prestige, and portend a difficult future, with a rising China, leading the world. It would also likely incentive Trump to look for a way in the future to regain his power, a nerve-racking proposition to a country tired of war.
I’m neither endorsing nor condoning the Madman Theory, but recognizing its strategic value and the success our President has had with it. As Trump has gone to 11 now with Iran, I hope for America’s sake he has not gone too far. In a few hours, we may begin to find out.
This is a great and measured analysis.
Here is a matching topic: Is the other side really mad?
If they are willing to die for their cause, go down with the nation or have the nation and region go down with them, how much punishment is Trump willing to take: to the Iranian people, to the markets, to allies, and to his legacy?
He may even win, but it may be pyrrhic, even catastrophic. He may look strong and display military prowess to Russia, China, and other adversaries. But, those not totally convinced of the premise (the immediate danger), damaged, if agreeing, regional allies, and independents globally may be permanently dismayed and unforgiving.
Seen another way: If the Japanese had not attacked Pearl Harbor, how would Americans have reacted to pictures of a firebombed Tokyo, with women and children on fire, or a flattened Dresden? How are people conditioned today if Trump must follow through and the Islamic Republic goes down fighting?