Lee Hyun-sang
The author is a columnist at the JoongAng Ilbo.
Despite U.S. President Donald Trump’s warning that he would open the “gates of hell” and impose a firm deadline for negotiations, Iran has remained unmoved. Instead, Trump is the one who appears increasingly pressed as he faces growing antiwar sentiment at home. In a recent column, New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman sharply criticized the situation, arguing that the very fact Iran’s leadership holds leverage over the United States reflects Trump’s inability to manage the crisis.
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks about the Iran war from the Cross Hall of the White House in Washington on April 1. [AP/YONHAP]
The deeper concern lies in Trump’s erratic behavior and repeated distortions of fact, which make any rational prediction difficult. The volatility of global stock markets reflects this uncertainty. Some interpret his unpredictability as a calculated negotiation tactic designed to keep opponents off balance, but recent developments have raised doubts about whether he fully grasps the situation himself. On social media, he has repeatedly exaggerated the number of United States Forces Korea personnel, citing figures exceeding 40,000 when the actual number stands at around 28,500. The gap is too large to dismiss as rhetorical exaggeration.
John Gartner, a psychologist and former Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine professor, recently warned on YouTube of the possibility that Trump may be showing signs of frontotemporal dementia. He pointed to symptoms such as paraphasia, or word substitution, and confabulation, in which memory gaps are filled with fabricated details. These, he argued, may indicate an organic deterioration of brain cells rather than a normal symptom of aging. While Gartner is known for his critical stance toward Trump and his claims warrant caution, the broader concern remains clear: The mental fitness of the leader of the world’s most powerful nation carries global consequences.
One immediate concern is Trump’s shifting stance on the Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery for global energy supplies. At times, he suggested that countries relying on the strait should manage the situation themselves. Soon after, he reversed course and declared that the United States would ensure the flow of oil by reopening the strait. It is difficult to imagine the United States relinquishing control over such a strategic chokepoint. Doing so would undermine the foundations of the so-called Pax Americana and the dollar’s dominance.
Since abandoning the gold standard in the 1970s, the United States has supported the dollar’s credibility through the petrodollar system, under which Middle Eastern oil is traded in dollars. If Washington were to abandon its role as a provider of security in international waters, it would also weaken its longstanding claim to uphold freedom of navigation, including in regions such as the East China Sea.
Trump’s apparent detachment is partly rooted in confidence in the United States’ shale oil industry. However, that sector has already seen many marginal firms driven out by Saudi Arabia’s low-price strategy aimed at defending market share. Restarting facilities and increasing production would take considerable time, making it unlikely that tangible results could be achieved within Trump’s current term.
A map showing the Strait of Hormuz and a 3-D printed miniature model of U.S. President Donald Trump are seen in this photo taken March 23. [REUTERS/YONHAP]
In effect, the conflict has only reinforced the strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz for Iran. From the perspective of geopolitical theorist Nicholas Spykman, Iran occupies a key position in the Rimland, the coastal fringe of the Eurasian continent. The United States’ inability to assert control even over such peripheral regions is fueling doubts worldwide. It raises questions about how Washington could confront major continental powers such as Russia and China. Trump’s harsh rhetoric toward allies increasingly resembles the frustration of a hegemonic power facing a turning point.
During Trump’s first term, figures such as James Mattis, a former U.S. secretary of defense, acted as moderating influences. Today, critics argue, those restraints have weakened, replaced by loyalists and advisers who view war through a transactional lens. Historian Margaret MacMillan warned in a recent interview that once war begins, leaders can become consumed by emotion and fear, leading them to take actions that defy reason. One can only hope that this does not describe the current state of the United States’ leadership.
War is shaped by structural forces, but the character of individual leaders can redirect its course. The possibility that the strategy of a global superpower may hinge on the cognitive state of a leader approaching 80 introduces a profound layer of uncertainty. Faced with such risks, the world finds itself in an uneasy position, hoping that his judgment remains sound.
This article was originally written in Korean and translated by a bilingual reporter with the help of generative AI tools. It was then edited by a native English-speaking editor. All AI-assisted translations are reviewed and refined by our newsroom.
댓글
0