[bad_user]

Judging by how Trump is behaving, there are two more possibilities:

(1) no strategy is involved at all, populists being known to do that, either because of incompetence or because stirring the pot gives the illusion of progress (it's after all why he was voted), or

(2) his strategy is aligned with his businesses, which is not that far fetched, given how he hasn't banned immigrants from Muslim countries in which he has business interests.

[emodendroket]

The countries he banned also all happen to have had historically antipathetic relations with the US. It's hard to tease out one thing from the other; it would have been illegal for Trump to pursue business in Iran.

I think ultimately Trump's foreign policy is going to end up extremely military-directed and won't be that much of a radical departure from what we've seen recently (not that that is necessarily good).

[macintux]

A large part of the established world order, for better or worse, is based on the predictability of US foreign policy.

Until it's clear that Trump is going to honor our existing agreements, continue to push for freedom of the seas, etc, that world order is going to start evolving into something different.

[emodendroket]

I constantly hear this argument in favor of the US intervening this or that place and I remain a bit skeptical. I don't think anyone really believes the US is going to neglect its obligations to countries it has actual defense agreements with, no matter what foolish thing Donald Trump is saying this week.

[mason240]

#2 is one the more ridiculous talking points floating around, for a number of different reasons that I'm sure you are already aware of.