Not everyone in the US has been overjoyed with President Trump’s maximalist threat. Reporters at the Post have dredged up academics at esteemed universities who seem willing to entertain the idea that Donald Trump is not crazy. Do they think the US president is simply acting strategically, though they are not necessarily endorsing the strategy, if it is a strategy?
Reports the Post:
“The madman strategy tends to be quite unpopular among the domestic public. If your citizens think that you are crazy, then they are less likely to support you,” Joshua Schwartz, an assistant professor of international relations at Carnegie Mellon University who has researched “Madman Theory,” told The Post.
Schwartz’s study on the foreign policy strategy found that “there are some limited benefits” to it, but there are downsides, such as locking leaders into a tough position due to fear of backing down and looking weak, as well as concerns about escalation.
Roseanne McManus, a professor of political science and international affairs at Pennsylvania State University, who has also studied “Madman Theory,” argued that its “effectiveness is uncertain at best.”
“If you make a really crazy threat, and you fail to follow through, then that will seriously damage the credibility of other threats,” McManus said. “In Trump’s case, he has followed through a couple of times recently in the Maduro case [and] in starting this war with Iran.”
“Perhaps backing down once wouldn’t necessarily totally erode his madman reputation.”
James Freeman writes in the WSJ that following McMcManus’s logic here, partisan adversaries in Washington who are calling Mr. Trump crazy might actually be empowering him in negotiations with the mullahs, who might offer more concessions if they think he’s capable of anything.
Tehran’s senior negotiators, holding positions as leaders in the Islamic Republic of Iran, are certainly familiar with madmen. They hold these positions due in part to recent leadership losses and the structure of the Tehran tyranny.
James Freeman is also skeptical of the 88 men who typically constitute the regime’s Assembly of Experts. The usual questions arise. For example, one hopes their expertise extends beyond the beating of women and the execution of political dissidents. Then there is the question about their management expertise, given that recently they seem to have chosen a new supreme leader who may not even be conscious.
Mr. Freeman has Further wonders: Is this the team that is going to figure out Donald Trump?
