RICHARD FERNANDEZ: The Trump Doctrine.

The problem is that in contrast to the straightforward brutalities of old-school war this approach may result in stalemate. Indeed the real weakness of the new Trump Strategy is not that it lacks an Exit but that it lacks an Entry. As Tanya Goudsouzian pointed out in Le Monde it has proved extremely difficult to effect regime change using “war by other means” alone. “Over the years, the preferred US weapon has been economic and financial sanctions. When used against North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and others, they succeeded only in punishing economies and people.”

So far hybrid warfare has proved capable of devastating their countries but not toppling its leaders. Despite ration lines in Cuba, a Venezuelan economy so bad even Russian arms dealers are wary of selling to them, a North Korea heading for another starvation winter the brutal regimes in these countries rule in perfect safety, willing if necessary to stay in power to the death of their last wretched citizen. Reuters paints the haunting picture of towns in a socialist Venezuela reduced to a “primitive isolation” that may well be eventual fate of Iran.

Perhaps the problem with the Trump Doctrine — that it leaves the future of other countries in their own peoples’ hands — is also one of its strengths.

In the short-to-medium term, that’s certainly less satisfying. In the longterm though it lowers our cost of engagement, while also reducing other assorted (and often unanticipated) risks.