From Nixon to Trump.. How did the 'Madman Theory' transform from a crisis tactic to a style of governance?

The 'madman theory' has returned to the global political scene with the escalation of tensions between Washington and Tehran, as US President Donald Trump appears to be adopting it as a cornerstone in his management of the conflict. This pattern is evident in raising the level of threats to their maximum, leaving both adversaries and allies in a constant state of anticipation for what the next steps might entail.

Recent times have witnessed clear manifestations of this approach, especially after the direct threat to strike Iranian energy facilities and impose a blockade on the Strait of Hormuz following the failure of talks in Pakistan. Despite the escalation reaching its peak, the round ended with a fragile truce on April 8, 2026, after Trump practiced 'brinkmanship' by extending deadlines at the last minute.

The historical roots of this approach date back to the era of former President Richard Nixon, specifically what his chief of staff H.R. Haldeman recounted in his memoirs. The idea was to convince adversaries that the president might do anything and that his reactions were unpredictable, forcing them to make concessions for fear of an uncalculated catastrophe.

Nixon used this tactic during the Vietnam War, culminating in the intense bombing of Hanoi in 1972, with the aim of extracting a settlement that would save Washington's face. However, observers believe that the results of this approach were ambiguous, as the terms of the subsequent peace agreement did not differ much from what was offered before the bloody military escalation.

Reports indicate that Trump's influence by Nixon is not just a political coincidence, but rather the result of a personal relationship and correspondence that spanned about a decade. This relationship began when Trump was an ambitious real estate developer in New York, while Nixon was trying to restore his political standing, which deepened Trump's understanding of power strategies and public image.

Trump's practice of this theory differs from his predecessor Nixon's in that it has transformed from a tactic to confront a specific dilemma into a comprehensive and permanent style of governance. While Nixon used it in limited issues such as Vietnam, Trump employs it across a wide range of domestic and international issues, turning confusion into a political 'operating system'.

Psychologically, studies analyze Trump's behavior as a mixture of ambition, opportunism, and authoritarian tendencies associated with impulsiveness. These traits make confusion and pressure natural tools in conflict management, as the president finds an ideal environment in uncertainty to impose his will and achieve negotiating gains.

Leadership experts at Yale University describe Trump's style as 'deliberate chaos', asserting that he follows consistent practical rules despite appearing unpredictable. These rules rely on a sharp survival instinct and adaptability, using bullying and flattery as complementary tools to navigate complex political impasses.

'Embarrassment diplomacy' emerged as one of the manifestations of this approach during Trump's second term, as he did not hesitate to publicly criticize his guests at the White House. These situations included mocking international leaders and engaging in sharp debates with religious figures and media personalities, which reinforces his image as a leader who does not adhere to traditional protocols.

In the face of media pressure, Trump follows a strategy of 'flooding the field' by continuously pumping out contradictory statements on his private platform. This policy aims to dominate the news agenda and prevent opponents from catching their breath or dissecting his claims, always keeping him at the center of events and global attention.

'Truth Social' is the main tool in this media battle, where Trump launches positions that vary in intensity and direction within a few hours. This intense activity distracts attention from issues that might harm his political standing, and imposes his own narrative on the public scene away from the scrutiny of traditional media.

Trump's clashes extended to include international institutions and major influential figures, such as his debate with Pope Leo XIV on immigration issues and military interventions. These confrontations reflect a desire to break existing rules and redefine the balance of power based on the logic of direct force and public confrontation.

Between the offices of Manhattan in the 1980s and the corridors of power in 2026, Trump managed to revive 'Nixon's ambiguity' and develop it to suit the era of digital chaos. The question today is no longer about the rationality of these actions, but about the international system's ability to adapt to this new pattern of power exercise.

Ultimately, the 'madman theory' in its contemporary Trumpian version appears as a response to the imbalance of traditional deterrence in the world. It is an attempt to impose American prestige through intimidation, placing international politics in a continuous test of dealing with a president who sees unpredictability as the pinnacle of strategic intelligence.

The madness here is not a loss of sanity, but a calculated political performance that employs fear and uncertainty as a tool of pressure on adversaries.