An armed "peacemaker" to the teeth

It may even be that Trump 2.0 signifies a de-escalation of wars and conflicts that have broken out in different parts of the world, especially in the Middle East and Eastern Europe. But there is no doubt that we will witness an increase in hardline policies, military coercion, and widespread securitization of the United States' international agenda.

The series of Executive Orders signed by Trump 2.0 in the first 24 hours of his presidency shows a concentration on decisions that make use, as a first alternative, of hardline attributes of power. From the outset, a broad scope of content is observed, which is associated with a need for an immediate demonstration of a monopoly on force, with the new administration ready to employ this resource from a top-down perspective. Another recurring characteristic in the formalized decisions is the blurred separation between domestic and international politics; between internal and external security. To this end, a short and direct executive order mandates the full alignment of the State Department, the Department of Defense, and the Homeland Security Agency with the "America First" premise.  

The cloned words of Secretary of State Marco Rubio indicated his state of readiness (a kind of "yes sir" with the sound of military obedience) when he declared that his foreign policy would serve three essential objectives: to make the United States stronger, safer, and more prosperous. Making this triple mission the mantra of American foreign policy will mean setting aside actions guided by values ​​and ideals and instead prioritizing national interests in all their manifestations, preferably those linked to the private sector. 

The issue of migration has taken on an emblematic meaning for the deployment of force in this direction. The militarization of the southern border and the declaration of a national emergency has delegated broad responsibility to the Department of Defense and the National Guard in containing the “barbarians.” The Pentagon is expected to develop a plan to ensure “sealing the borders, maintaining the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and security of the United States, repelling all forms of invasion.” Thus, what is known as the interdominical agenda, which dominates US relations with its main southern neighbor, will become a corollary of defense and internal security policy. A close link has also been established between the securitization of Trump's immigration policy and the designation of drug cartels as terrorist groups. The connections between drug traffickers operating on national soil and transnational criminal organizations—including some of Latin American origin such as Trém de Aragua and Las Maras Salvatrucha (MS 13)—will become the target of military actions beyond national borders. The Northern Military Command, which already extends its reach into Mexico, is expected to contribute to fulfilling the responsibilities that this new categorization will entail.

The first statements of the new Secretary of State also reveal an intention to show its teeth on the world stage. It is no coincidence that the United States quickly withdrew from areas where dialogue prevails that dispense with the demonstration of military power, such as the Paris Agreement and the World Health Organization, and even some OECD agencies. In reality, multilateralism, in its various forms, is considered a useless, counterproductive, and threatening field to sovereignty for the new occupants of the White House. Consequently, the next four years should be expected to be marked by significant bilateralism, whether to escalate conflict or to seal loyalties. It will be a binary logic of friends and enemies, partners and those who have been canceled, those who have been favored and those who have been discarded. The actions of Trump's USA will be guided by elementary strategic equations that will seek to control risks through military coercion and work towards quick results. 

The end of Hamas-Israel hostilities represents a first test. For the Trump administration, it is essential that peace and oil find a balance that is beneficial to the United States and its partners in the Middle East. Energy is the imperial goal, Saudi Arabia the stellar bilateral link, and Israel the loyal-dependent pawn, which will be well rewarded for accepting, even reluctantly, to play the master's game. This simple equation may even make it feasible to resume negotiations to reach a two-state solution. As long as it is to create a stronger, more secure, and prosperous third state.