"TACO" Trump and War in Iran - Between Madman Theory and Madness

In the crucible of American foreign policy, few decisions carry more consequence than the question of whether to go to a war that has the potential to change the Middle East. Donald Trump, entering what appears to be the most volatile stretch of his second-term foreign policy, now faces a moment of historic magnitude. Trump’s leadership style and decision-making raises real concerns about his ability to manage such high-stakes diplomacy, let alone win. One might mistake his predictable unpredictability as a deliberate application of the madman theory – yet, without cognitive or emotional discipline and solid institutional checks and balances, it is just madness. Regional security appears to be in the hands of a strategic procrastinator whose unbalanced mood can be tipped by whoever moves first.

Persona over Policy

At the core of Trump’s decision-making is a set of traits that reflect not strategy but a psychological profile ill-equipped for sustained geopolitical engagement. Trump leads through personality-centric leadership, where loyalty and personal image matter more than process, expertise, or strategic objectives. Key advisors are selected not for competence but for loyalty and affirmation, creating a policymaking bubble that substitutes praise for rigour.

Trump also exhibits narcissistic reward-seeking, where decisions are calibrated to maximize personal praise and media validation. Some even call it solipsism where not even the admiration from others really matters anymore. The result is a reactive presidency: critical decisions made not in the Situation Room but off-the-cuff in front of journalists on Air Force One, not with intelligence briefings but with polling data and ratings reports. Praise often triggers impulsive follow-through; criticism produces lashing out. The stakes in this war demand steadiness. Instead, America has a commander-in-chief governed by emotional whiplash.

Trump’s impulsivity is legendary. He often acts on instinct, dismisses dissenting voices, and changes course without notice. In international affairs, where consistency and signalling are critical, this trait undermines US credibility. Allies cannot count on him, adversaries do not fear him, and bureaucracies struggle to implement shifting directives. His inability to maintain strategic patience—opting instead for flashy moments and symbolic gestures—further erodes any foundation for durable outcomes.

Chaos as Method

He thrives on conflict as strategy. Trump sees escalation and confrontation as expressions of strength, frequently engaging in aggressive rhetoric against opponents, both domestic and foreign. But this preference for stoking tensions creates an unstable environment in which dialogue becomes impossible, and de-escalation appears weak. For Trump, resolving conflict means losing leverage—an approach that incentivizes prolonged confrontation without a clear off-ramp.

One of Trump’s most consistent governing patterns is his dominance-driven approach. He prefers unilateral commands and views negotiation as a zero-sum test of strength. This has led to moments of organizational dysfunction where top-down orders contradict institutional advice. There is no room for nuance, contingency planning, or compromise—just declarations of victory, often untethered from the underlying reality.

Moreover, Trump has a proven record of situational retreat—a pattern now so familiar it has been dubbed the “Trump Always Chickens Out” (TACO) doctrine. Despite threats and bravado, he often backs down under base pressure, market reactions, or elite disapproval. In a conflict like the one unfolding with Iran, where threats must be backed by readiness to act strategically, this pattern erodes the credibility of US deterrence.

The Israeli Catalyst: Baiting Trump into War

This is dangerously relevant in the context of Iran. His decision to tacitly support Israel’s Operation Rising Lion – an assault aimed at degrading Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure – was not the product of long-range planning. It was Trump’s reactive manoeuvre to Israel’s unilateral strike, designed to project strength and reclaim narrative dominance as complex diplomacy could no longer keep up with his declining patience. But coercion detached from diplomatic vision rarely works. Iran, humiliated and under siege, will not capitulate under these conditions. The regime’s revolutionary ethos and survivalist posture, make it inherently resistant to external pressure, especially when such pressure is erratic and performative.

Indeed, Netanyahu has played Trump masterfully. According to a detailed New York Times account, Trump initially resisted Israeli pressure to strike Iran, wary of being pulled into another Middle East war. But Netanyahu, facing his own domestic political troubles, pressed forward anyway. Once the strikes began, Trump’s need to “own” the situation—to reframe a decision not originally his—took over. His posture changed almost overnight. What was once cautious diplomacy turned into full-spectrum support for Israeli escalation, driven more by ego than strategy.

Trumpists at War with themselves

This episode also exposed deep fissures within Trump’s coalition. The MAGA America First camp, led ideologically by figures like Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson, views the Iran conflict as a replay of the neocon overreach that produced the Iraq disaster. In contrast, hawks like Lindsey Graham see this moment as a chance to finish the job. Trump is caught between these camps, and true to form, he is navigating not with principle but with opportunism. It is proving to be quite challenging for Trump to choose between imperfect courses of action – the very essence of strategy. The result is strategic procrastination and paralysis.

Strategic Decay through Image Obsession

At a more foundational level, Trump’s reliance on charisma over competence corrodes the very institutions meant to support strategic decision-making. His preference for spectacle—big rallies, dramatic announcements, off-the-cuff tweets—creates an illusion of decisiveness while masking the absence of serious policy formulation. In the world of intricate diplomacy where mediators such as Qatar and Oman are trying to carefully construct a diplomatic off-ramp for the conflict, a constantly changing US policy direction is detrimental.

Trump’s moral flexibility and willingness to sidestep rules only deepen the strategic incoherence. His ends-justify-the-means approach often leads him to ignore legal constraints, marginalize experts, and manipulate intelligence. This environment breeds distrust internally and abroad. Iran, which has repeatedly accused the US of duplicity, is unlikely to engage seriously with a White House that acts arbitrarily and in bad faith.

The danger is not just in what Trump might do. It is also in how and why he does it. His charisma may rally a base, but charisma cannot halt Iran’s nuclear program or broker a regional consensus. If America ends up entangled in yet another Middle Eastern war, it won’t be because the country lacked strength. It will be because the man at the helm mistook spectacle for statecraft—and let his own image dictate the future of regional security.

America’s mediators in the Gulf as well as Iranian negotiators need to factor in institutional chaos and a volatile US commander-in-chief to make use of an ambiguous two-weeks window America is giving Iran to concede its nuclear program. It will be a hire-wire act in an Israeli hurricane to get this done on time.