Supporters of this principle considered it precisely their goal, believing that continuous interventions, such as those carried out by the Bill Clinton administration in Somalia, Haiti, and former Yugoslavia, constituted an abuse of military force that portended failure or getting bogged down.
This new approach to war began to take shape during Donald Trump's first term and solidified in his second. In 2017 and 2018, Trump ordered missile strikes against the regime of former Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and continued U.S. military operations in Iraq and Syria. Last year, Trump destroyed major Iranian nuclear sites, attacked militants in northern Nigeria, this year his administration intervened in Venezuela to oust President Nicolás Maduro, and finally, launched a large-scale military operation in Iran.
On the other hand, Trump employed a tactic based on exploiting ambiguity to his advantage to catch opponents off guard. For example, the American attacks on Iran in 2025 and 2026 occurred during ongoing negotiations.
Instead of justifying each war, the president repeatedly insisted that he hoped to avoid it. The Trump administration also avoided setting clear objectives for the use of force. When announcing the war on Iran, the president stated that the goal was "to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime." A day after the attacks began, Trump wrote on social media that the goal of the airstrikes was to achieve "our goal of peace throughout the Middle East, and indeed, the world," and stated that the objective was to change the regime in Iran and that he planned to negotiate with the new leadership that replaced the supreme leader.
"The Powell Doctrine"... and Trump's Approach
The Powell Doctrine states that overwhelming and decisive force must be used to achieve the goal and defeat the enemy as quickly and decisively as possible. The approach of U.S. President Donald Trump, however, prefers short, decisive military operations using only specific types of force, primarily air power and special forces, often excluding traditional ground forces.
His administration issued no public warnings, and it appears Trump does not see force as an option to be turned to only when all other means are exhausted, but as one of the available tools to enhance influence, maximize surprise, and bring about tangible change.
Among the elements of the Powell Doctrine that Trump appears to have completely ignored is the pursuit of public support. Powell considered the protests against American intervention during the Vietnam War a paradigmatic example to be avoided. As Powell later wrote, military leaders "cannot quietly acquiesce to an indecisive war for ill-defined reasons the American people cannot understand or support."
Powell's approach, based on standards set by U.S. Secretary of Defense in the 1980s Casper Weinberger, sparked widespread controversy from the start. Some critics argued that the "all-or-nothing" approach to war would prevent the measured use of force to achieve modest but important goals. If a goal is vital enough for Americans to fight for, it is incumbent upon the people being fought for to support it. Gaining this support usually requires the president to make persuasive arguments repeatedly over months. It is also expected in such a case to get congressional approval for going to war after an extended debate.
While the Powell Doctrine calls for clarity, Trump prefers flexibility. However, Trump did not seek public support for any of his military operations, nor did Congress vote to authorize any of them. He began every conflict suddenly and took an unexpected course.
When the bombs began to fall on Iran, most Americans were surprised, as was the rest of the world. Although U.S. military presence in the Middle East had been building in the weeks prior, negotiations between Washington and Tehran were still ongoing. The national debate in the U.S. about the war was extremely limited, as was the dialogue with U.S. allies.
Days after the war was initiated by the U.S. administration, Israeli officials did not present a clear vision for how to end it, even as the chances of unexpected scenarios seem far greater than the odds of the American president achieving his war aims, according to an analysis by the CEO of the new American Center for Security, Richard Fontaine, published in the American magazine "Foreign Affairs."
Fontaine sees Trump's use of American military power as contradicting, in several ways, what is known as the "Powell Doctrine" developed by U.S. General Colin Powell during the Gulf War to liberate Kuwait in 1991.
While the American army was preparing for the attack, the Trump administration concealed the precise objective. This doctrine holds that the use of force must be the last resort only after all peaceful means have been exhausted. If war is necessary, it must be fought to achieve a clear objective, with a clear exit strategy, and with public support. Furthermore, overwhelming and decisive force must be used to defeat the enemy, utilizing all available resources—military, economic, political, and social.
