Everyone is claiming victory in the court of Versailles. In the week since Donald Trump struck Iran, hawks have claimed they pushed him towards interventionism by persuading him to authorise the strike. Doves, meanwhile, believe they pushed the President towards restraint by persuading him to stop there. The reality that both claims may be true reminds us that Trump will never fit either category at all.

I can’t claim credit for the Versailles comparison, but it also happens to fit remarkably well with the President’s recent White House makeover. The point, though, is that Trump does not act on prefabricated ideological doctrines. Instead, he invites an array of advisors — ranging from pundits to generals — to make their cases to him. They invariably brawl with one another, privately and in public, so that he can suss out the winning argument. General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the latest champion of this epic tug of war, according to new reporting from the Wall Street Journal. 

Caine, to be clear, is not reported to be any sort of partisan advocate so much as an advisor trusted by Trump for his ostensible neutrality. According to the Journal, the President remembered Caine for deviating from conventional wisdom during his first term, advising Trump that he could “knock the hell out of” Isis.

Now, Caine’s supervision of the Iran strike has “magnified his influence with a president whose previous handpicked military advisers had often proved to be obstacles to his goals”. The Journal adds that “Caine outlined multiple military options rather than advocating for a course of action” ahead of the move.

Asked on Thursday at an eventful Pentagon press conference with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth whether he’d modified his assessment of the damage in Iran under political pressures, Caine said: “No, I have not, and no, I would not.” John Bolton, who served as national security advisor during Trump’s first term, told the Journal that his impression of Caine was of a “nonpolitical” general. He also comes with the endorsement of Vice President JD Vance, the administration’s most influential sceptic of foreign interventions.

Does Caine’s ascent in the context of the Iran strike signal that Trump is poised to side with the hawks in his court? It’s unlikely Vance would champion Caine if that were the case, though it’s possible the VP is working hard to dispel rumours that he was hesitant about last Saturday’s action. (It’s also, of course, possible those rumours came from his camp.)

The emergence of the man known as “Razin’ Caine” recalls the rise of generals Jim “Mad Dog” Mattis, John F. Kelly, and H.R. McMcMaster in Trump’s first term. Caine has likely learned from their dramatic burnouts, but that doesn’t mean the President will permanently be under the sway of another general.

Trump’s foreign policy will never be realist or neoconservative. His animating principle appears to be strength, which he sees as the central question of national interest. This helps us understand Trump’s definition of “peace through strength”, which is not merely about building up the military but also about projecting that strength in high-risk, high-reward operations such as the recent strikes or the 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani. These outings, Trump seems to think, deter aggression with minimal risk of longer entanglements.

This is why both arch-dove Tucker Carlson and hawkish conservative TV host Mark Levin are claiming victory. Carlson believes pressure from himself, Steve Bannon, and others prevented Trump from immediately pursuing regime change and further escalation after last week’s strikes. Levin thinks he prevented Trump from sitting on his proverbial hands and refusing to join Israel’s war on Iran.

Presented with plausible options by a trusted general like Caine, Trump appeared to side with Levin and his allies, then ultimately with Carlson, Bannon, and their allies. Perhaps what Caine’s rise signals above all else is that Trump’s favourite general understands the power of giving the President options and letting the chips fall where they may. The Trump Doctrine is being forged in real time, and what its contours will look like come 2028 is anyone’s guess.

---

Emily Jashinsky is UnHerd‘s Washington correspondent.

emilyjashinsky

---