Is Trump being reckless or careful? Decades ago, I watched some television show with people who seemed to me to be intelligent, talking about regime changes. A take-away for me was the importance of democracies. If we support a dictator, then when the dictator is overthrown, the new power considers us the enemy. If we overthrow a dictator, then the people who supported the former dictator consider us the enemy. When we support a democracy, we can say that we support your elected choice.
With that in mind, I’m watching the world stage. Some criticize the capture of Maduro. The argument is that President Trump has violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
Trump is claiming his actions were just a police action. Military action was only used to protect law enforcement personnel.
I don’t like the idea of the U.S. doing whatever it wants around the world just because we are the biggest gorilla. On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic. How does the U.S. help people around the world flourish in their own countries? Sending money to countries seems to be used by corrupt leaders and doesn’t really change the underlying dynamics.
Some people criticize Trump for not recognizing the opposition leader (who many claim was elected president). That would certainly be a regime change as described in the first paragraph. In my opinion, it would also lend more support to the idea that the Trump administration violated the U.N. Charter. Trump left the government intact. I suspect the new leadership might have a different perspective on working with the U.S.
Some claim the CIA could have accomplished something similar without involving the military. Apparently, that would not have violated the U.N. Charter. Is that the way we have done things in the past? How did it work out? Look at Iran.
Iran was overthrown in 1953. According to The National Security Archive the CIA was involved:
The issue is more than academic. Political partisans on all sides, including the Iranian government, regularly invoke the coup to argue whether Iran or foreign powers are primarily responsible for the country's historical trajectory, whether the United States can be trusted to respect Iran's sovereignty, or whether Washington needs to apologize for its prior interference before better relations can occur.
Some Iranians were attending Independence Community Junior College while I was a student in the mid 1970s. One student had been in the military and had a picture of the Shaw in his wallet. In 1979, the Shaw was overthrown. Apply the first paragraph - we became the enemy. Iran is just one example. There have been many.
Something that I have wondered about is why the U.S. doesn’t go after leaders. Why not take out Putin? Why kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers because of one leader? Could Trump’s police action to extricate Maduro be an example of a change in war tactics?
Has Trump just caused a ripple of doubt in leadership of all countries? Mexico didn’t want our help to fight drug gangs. Do you think Mexico had any idea of what the U.S. military is capable of? Do you suppose Mexico might be re-thinking?
What about Iran? If Trump said that he would not tolerate killing Iranian protesters, what are his options? If we take out the leadership, will we be the bad guys as described in the first paragraph? So far, he’s talking about more tariffs. Really?
Then we have Greenland. I didn’t realize the strategic importance of Greenland until I watched an episode of the television series, The Diplomat, last year. Greenland is of strategic importance to help control the Arctic circle. Russia and China are bolstering their presences in the area.
Meanwhile, Canada is our major ally in the Arctic circle. It has the largest coastline in the world. It has a GDP of $2.24 trillion. Canada is on track to reach its annual NATO commitment of spending 2% on its military this year. That would be $44.8B. Note that the 2% agreement was first reached in 2006 and this will be the first time Canada has met it. Can a country with the longest coastline in the world defend itself with $44.8B?
Compare to U.S. The GDP of the U.S. in 2024 was $28.7 trillion. The U.S. spent 3.22% on defense or $924B. For perspective, the sum of all defense related expenditures of NATO allies was $1588B in 2025. Without the U.S. contribution, the total is $664B. I don’t want to quarrel with NATO. However, to put a fine point on the problem, if all the NATO allies decided to gang up on the U.S., based just on our spending differences, the allies would be $260B short.
As I said earlier, I don’t like the idea of the U.S. being the world’s bully. I don’t even like the idea that we are every NATO ally’s big brother. However, that seems to be the reality.
We live in a dangerous world. People leave their countries to come to the U.S. hoping for a better life. I hope that the U.S. can continue to be a country that people want to come to.
Even better is a world where people can flourish in their own countries. In many cases, that means that oppressors must act differently. I’m hopeful that Trump is setting the stage for that change of action.
I have read about half of Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy of the Unites States of America. So far, it looks to me like his ambition is to get along with all countries. I’ll continue reading and give you my perspective.
Thanks for feedback.