The Illusion of Peace: How Trump’s Hawkishness Shattered a Decade-Long Myth
The long-held belief that Donald Trump represents a departure from traditional US interventionism has been irrevocably shattered by recent events, most notably the brazen attempt to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. What began with promises of avoiding “reckless” foreign entanglements has morphed into a display of naked imperial power, raising fears of a new era of global disorder.
From “America First” to Imperial Vassalage
In 2023, then-Senator JD Vance endorsed President Trump’s bid for a second term, citing a commitment to peace. “He has my support in 2024,” Vance wrote, “because I know he won’t recklessly send Americans to fight overseas.” Fast forward to 2026, and Vice President Vance now finds himself defending a deeply controversial US military raid – an explicit attempt to engineer regime change in Venezuela through the abduction of its leader.
This stark contrast underscores a fundamental miscalculation: the persistent myth that Trump is a dove. This notion, always at odds with his record and rhetoric, is now indefensible in the wake of the Maduro seizure. The myth stemmed, in part, from a reluctance to confront Trump’s longstanding commitments to a form of neo-imperialism, cloaked in the language of “America First.”
The Hawk in Disguise
Trump’s brand of hawkish politics now threatens to usher in a period of unprecedented global instability. During a recent press conference, Trump asserted that America now “runs” post-Maduro Venezuela, signaling a willingness to exert direct control over the nation’s affairs. Administration officials have indicated that Vice President Delcy Rodriguez will be expected to govern according to American dictates, or face consequences.
These dictates include allowing American oil companies to extract Venezuelan crude, with the proceeds earmarked to finance US military activity within the country. In essence, the administration is demanding Venezuela become an American imperial vassal, paying a steep price for its subjugation. Should Venezuela resist, Trump has warned of “a second and much larger attack” – and even the possibility of a full-scale invasion. “We’re not afraid of boots on the ground,” he stated on Saturday.
A Pattern of Belligerence
The attempt to forcibly remove Maduro is not an isolated incident. It is the culmination of a pattern of behavior that belies the image of Trump as a non-interventionist. While some observers believe Trump may not ultimately follow through on his threats, the very attempt to achieve regime change through what amounts to a protection racket – beginning with the brazen abduction of a foreign leader – exposes the fallacy of the “Trump as peacemaker” narrative.
The roots of this misperception stretch back nearly a decade. In 2016, New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd characterized Trump as “Donald the Dove, Hillary the Hawk,” suggesting he “thought the invasion of Iraq was a stupid idea” and preferred “the art of the deal” to “shock and awe.” This analysis proved demonstrably wrong. Trump had publicly supported the Iraq War, the 2011 intervention in Libya, and even advocated for intervention in the Syrian civil war during his initial campaign.
The Cultivation of a Myth
Despite his past support for military action, the narrative of Trump as an anti-war candidate took hold, fueled by his own rhetoric. During the 2024 campaign, Trump declared, “If Kamala wins, only death and destruction await because she is the candidate of endless wars. I am the candidate of peace.” This message resonated with a broad spectrum of observers, including prominent figures like Tucker Carlson, who proclaimed after the 2024 election that “good leaders don’t foment pointless wars. They end them.” Even some on the left, such as Marxist economist Christian Parenti, argued that Trump had done more to restrain the US imperium than any politician in 75 years.
Even NPR, in a seemingly objective report, noted that Trump was “long known for his ‘America First’ ethos and non-interventionist stance.” This widespread acceptance of the myth, however, stood in stark contrast to Trump’s actual record.
Oil, Power, and a Modern Imperialism
At the heart of Trump’s foreign policy lies a longstanding preoccupation with controlling foreign oil resources. While not the sole driver of the Maduro abduction, it is a significant factor. As far back as 1987, Trump called for invading Iran and seizing its oil. In 2011, he proposed intervening in Libya, stating, “I’m only interested in Libya if we take the oil.” In 2013, he framed his evolving stance on Iraq as a disappointment that the US had not pursued naked imperialism.
In 2019, as president, Trump sent troops to seize Syrian oil fields, intending to have ExxonMobil develop them. This plan ultimately failed due to Exxon’s reluctance to participate. However, in his second term, Trump’s instincts are unrestrained. The “adults in the room,” like former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, who once served as a check on his impulses, are gone. Instead, competing factions within the administration – including isolationists like Vance and hawks like Marco Rubio – vie for influence, attempting to frame their positions as the truest expression of Trump’s vision. Rubio, in particular, has successfully appealed to Trump’s desire to assert American power and seize resources.
The Illusion of “No New Wars”
Defenders of the “Trump as peacemaker” narrative often point to the fact that he did not initiate any “new wars” during his first term. This argument, however, is a deceptive one. Trump dramatically escalated existing conflicts, removing Obama-era restrictions on the use of force in Iraq and Syria, resulting in a tripling of civilian deaths from US bombing campaigns. Furthermore, he engaged in dangerous provocations, threatening North Korea with “fire and fury” and assassinating Iranian General Qassem Soleimani – actions that could easily have spiraled into full-scale war.
While luck or restraint from other actors may have prevented these escalations, Trump’s second term appears to be characterized by a willingness to push those boundaries. His recent bombing of an Iranian nuclear site, coupled with renewed threats, and the use of drone strikes in the Caribbean – ostensibly to combat “narco-terrorism” – have created a climate ripe for further conflict.
A New World Disorder
The abduction of Maduro and the threats against Venezuela signal a dangerous shift in global politics. Trump’s actions are not simply a continuation of past US interventionism; they represent a more brazen and unrestrained form of imperialism, backed by a modern military apparatus. This has prompted Mexico to prepare for a potential US invasion and Denmark to take seriously recent US threats to seize Greenland.
Political scientist Seva Gunitsky suggests this new order could resemble a regional “carve-up,” with the US, Russia, and China each exerting dominance within their respective spheres of influence. This would represent a fundamental departure from the post-World War II order, which, despite its flaws, provided a degree of stability and predictability. The 2003 invasion of Iraq weakened that order, Trump’s first term hollowed it out, and his current actions may have shattered it beyond repair.
Americans should prepare for a future defined by chaos and uncertainty. The illusion of peace is gone, replaced by the harsh reality of a world where the rules are being rewritten – and the consequences could be catastrophic.
