Trump speaks up and the world holds its breath

Translated by Erica Cervellera

The dawn of a new era

The tariffs imposed by Donald Trump on Liberation day hit not only Europe but all the other countries included in the tariff measures recipients list as well.
Trump’s strategy seems to have got the point, despite the turmoils in the global markets in the last hours: it has been a success on a diplomatic and authority level. His foreign policy is more and more similar to a high-tension poker game made of well-weighted bluffs, floored raisings and plot twists to ensure the role of the sole protagonist at the global table. 
Recently, the White House and the Treasury Department had conversations with more than 75 delegations of countries affected by the tariffs, thus showing a diplomatic activism which allowed the US to regain a strategic centrality which had gone missing since Biden’s administration.
Some countries decided to go for a wait-and-see or negotiating approach, but some others which are too export-dependent, such as South Korea, Japan, and China, reacted vigorously. On the 30th of March 2025, in Seoul, the three Asian giants gathered for an emergency trilateral meeting aimed at accelerating the negotiations to reach a regional free trade agreement: this was anything but random.

The trade “truce” announced by Trump on the 9th of April does not apply to China, which still is in the target of the American protectionist approach. Indeed, the US government has launched a new and harsh economic offensive against Beijing with 125% tariffs with immediate effect, which marks a clear escalation in the already difficult relationship of these two super powers. Seoul’s meeting undoubtedly is a practical attempt made by China, Japan and South Korea to strengthen the regional economic cooperation in response to external pressures, trying to build a common front which could fight the north-americas tariff hegemony. Among the void left by the multilateral institutions, the international reality seems to confirm what scholars and analysts predicted: the comeback to a world where super powers are rivals. 

The tariffs logic

There is a clear rationale behind the calculation of these tariffs: it all starts with the trade gap between the United States and another country which is then related to the total of the north american imports coming from that specific country. The outcome has to be split in two halves, thus determining the amount of the duty to be paid. For instance, in the case of the European Union, in 2024 the US trade gap with the EU was of 235,6 billion dollars. This deficit was compared to the total of the American importations from the EU, which is equivalent to 605,8 billion dollars, gaining a percentage of 39%. Nevertheless, Trump has decided to apply only half of the this percentage, bringing the tariff to the 19,5%. The American administration has put on hold the tariffs for 90 days for a “tactical pause” to rebalance the relationships with some strategic allies and, in the meantime, to focus their efforts against what they call “systemic threat”: China. In this context, the World Trade Organization (WTO) seems to be more and more marginalised, unable to stop the unilateral trade wars escalation. In the same way, the World Customs Organization, created to foster the cooperation among customs and to facilitate the international trade, is now in the position of a passive observer. Global trade is by now affected by political decisions rather than shared rules, and neither institution has issued any official statement in response to the recent tariff measures taken by Trump.  

Trump’s Realistic strategy: from trade tariffs to “geopolitical rivalries” 

Trump’s trade policies, particularly the imposition of customs tariffs, are not an isolated phenomenon, but they represent a piece of a broader realistic strategy which permeates his international relationships, as shown by the conflicts with Iran and China. The logic is to protect and maintain the power of the US, in line with the realist view that global politics is driven by competition for dominance. It is not random that the EU has suspended for 90 days its tariffs in response to the Washington ones. The strengthening of tariffs against Beijing clearly shows that Washington sees China not as a simple trade competitor, but as a systemic rival in geopolitics and technology. As a matter of fact, trade wars are not merely matters of tariffs and protectionism, but a real manifestation of a geopolitical strategy to assert the US supremacy on a global scale. 

USA-Iran: from the economic crisis to the low-intensity war

From this perspective, Iran has turned into a challenging power, even though it firs was a US ally, trying to redefine its position in the Middle East. According to the Brecher model, the escalation stage features an increase of conflictive interactions: here, perceptions of threats between two individuals are major and the stress coming from potential consequences of a direct conflict is just as high. The US military mobilization of the Carl Vinson aircraft carrier and of other military forces in the region - which also brought the deployment of strategic resources such as B-2 stealth bombers, indicates that the situation has reached a critical stage. While open conflict has yet to erupt, preparations for a large-scale confrontation are clearly underway. The tycoon never hid the possibility of a direct military operation whenever an agreement on the Iranian nuclear dossier should not be reached, thus strengthening the ides of a high-tension crisis intended to last. 

USA-China

In these diplomatic ever-growing tensions, threats perceptions are now more intense, with a stress increase among the powers affected. China’s strategy to indirectly fund the war actions of the US through the purchase of Treasury bonds, partly echoes Napoleon’s idea of “paying for the ride” to the enemy, as Napoleon suggested. This approach was particularly clear during Afghanistan wars and, consequently, in Iraq, when China used its foreign exchange reserves to fund the high costs of the US military operations without clearly exposing its Country. Its policy of Treasury bonds purchase allowed the US to keep giving funds to conflicts without having to bear the entire financial burden in that precise moment, thus maintaining a relatively stable economy. Although China has reduced its exposure to U.S. Treasury bonds over time, it still maintains a prominent position as one of the main holders of American government securities, suggesting that the strategy of 'paying for the ride' may not be entirely out of fashion. Today, the situation is further complicated by Trump's new measures, which continue to create economic and political frictions.

Realism at the root of the trade war and the decline of the multilateral order

Donald Trump’s approach to foreign policy, particularly in the context of his relations with powers such as China and Iran, fits squarely within the theoretical framework of realism as elaborated by Robert Gilpin. In the trade context, Trump’s policy was marked by a series of protectionist measures such as tariffs and the adoption of the “America First” doctrine. These tools align perfectly with Gilpin’s vision: trade policy can be used as a strategic lever by hegemonic powers to maintain their dominance or, in the case of China, to prevent a rising power from challenging the existing order. The sharp increase in tariffs against Beijing represents a clear application of realist thinking: Trump rejects multilateral cooperative logic and goes for direct confrontation, aimed at containing China’s rise at any cost. Economic wars, therefore, are not merely tools of pressure, but signals of a deep transformation in the international order. Gilpin’s theories, far from being obsolete, are more relevant than ever to understand how global power dynamics are shifting—potentially leading not only to economic conflict, but also to military confrontation in the near future.

Mondo Internazionale APS - Copyright ® 2025