First Bomb, Then War: Trump's Strategy in His Second Term

Trump’s Military Strategy: A Surge in Air Strikes and Controversial Tactics

During the first six months of his second term, former President Donald Trump has significantly expanded the use of U.S. military force, particularly air strikes, while promoting a foreign policy centered on “America First.” This approach has sparked debate among analysts, who note a pattern of contradictory tactics that oscillate between anti-interventionism and aggressive military actions framed as “peace through strength.”

According to a report by the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project (ACLED), the U.S. conducted 529 air attacks across the Middle East, Central Asia, and Africa in the first five months of Trump’s term. This number is already approaching the total of 555 strikes carried out by the Biden administration over its entire four-year term. The data highlights a significant increase in military activity under Trump, raising questions about the consistency and long-term goals of his foreign policy.

Clionadh Raleigh, a professor of political geography and founder of ACLED, pointed out that targeted airstrikes are being used not as a last resort but as an initial move. “While Trump has promised to end America’s ‘forever wars,’ he has rarely elaborated on how,” she said. “These early months suggest the plan may be to use overwhelming firepower to end fights before they begin, or before they drag on.”

The Emergence of a ‘Trump Doctrine’?

Trump’s approach to military intervention has drawn both support and criticism within his own base. His decision to launch a six-week bombing campaign against the Houthis in Yemen and a recent strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities have stirred controversy. In response, Vice President JD Vance outlined what he called the “Trump Doctrine” during a speech in Ohio. He described it as a three-step process: identifying a clear American interest, attempting diplomatic solutions, and using overwhelming military power if diplomacy fails.

However, analysts like Michael Wahid Hanna from the Crisis Group argue that this vision lacks coherence. “It’s an attempt to retrofit a strategy,” Hanna said. While there is a consistent thread of impatience in Trump’s diplomacy, he noted that the administration’s efforts have been haphazard and unrealistic.

Despite Trump’s promises to transform peace efforts in the Russia-Ukraine war, his initial pressure campaign against Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy led to a return to the Biden administration’s hardline stance on Russia. Similarly, his failure to make progress in addressing Israel’s war in Gaza has left unresolved tensions with Iran and the Houthis in Yemen.

A Shift Toward Military Aggression

The early emphasis on air strikes has been accompanied by Trump’s push to restore a “warrior ethos” within the U.S. military. He has frequently posted videos of military actions, such as the attack on an ISIS-affiliated target in Somalia just 10 days after taking office. Trump criticized Biden for tightening rules of engagement, claiming that the previous administration was too slow to act.

Since taking office, Trump has conducted at least 44 air strikes in Somalia, surpassing the 60 strikes carried out by the Biden administration over four years. Similar rhetoric has been seen in Yemen, where his administration launched a bombing campaign from March to May. The strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities were also heavily publicized, with Trump declaring them “obliterated like nobody’s ever seen before.”

Civilian Casualties and Ethical Concerns

The surge in military action has raised concerns about civilian casualties. Emily Tripp, director of Airwars, noted that 224 reported civilian deaths in Yemen from U.S. strikes under Trump in 2025 nearly match the 258 casualties from the prior 23 years. She also highlighted the use of powerful and expensive munitions, which have been deployed against a broader range of targets than under Biden.

Two strikes in Yemen—one on Ras Isa Port and another on a migrant detention center in Saada—have been flagged as possible war crimes by human rights organizations. Tripp emphasized that these actions do not align with the stated goal of targeting economic interests.

Questions About Effectiveness

Despite the increased use of military force, it remains unclear whether Trump’s strategy will prevent U.S. involvement in protracted conflicts. While a ceasefire with the Houthis has held, the results of the bombing campaign have been limited. The group continues to attack vessels in the Red Sea and launch missiles at Israel.

The effectiveness of strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is also uncertain. Little progress has been made since a ceasefire was reached after Tehran retaliated against a U.S. base in Qatar.

Analysts like Hanna argue that the reliance on air strikes may be due to their perceived “antiseptic” nature, with their impact shielded from public scrutiny. However, he warned that air power alone has limits and cannot solve complex geopolitical issues.