Is Trump's Gaza suggestion that he intends to relocate the Palestinian population from Gaza and turn the region into “the Riviera of the Middle East” an example of the "Madman Theory" or is it a negotiation tactic?

The term "Madman Theory" is a concept that primarily came into vogue during the presidency of Richard Nixon in the 1970s. Comparisons between the two are now being made after Trump's seemingly crazy comments on Gaza.

The theory revolves around creating an image of being unpredictable and willing to go to extreme lengths, even irrationally, to achieve one's goals. It is based on the premise of projecting this madman persona with the goal of unsettling and intimidating the adversary, making them more likely to concede or negotiate on terms favorable than would happen with a more conventional negotiating approach.

Nixon's administration applied this in the context of the Cold War, hoping to keep adversaries, like the Soviet Union, off balance. Of course, it is a risky approach that relies on the fear of the unknown and the unpredictable response of the opponent, especially when it is played out in an extremely volatile region of the world.

Trump has often projected an image of unpredictability and willingness to take extreme measures either intentionally or unintentionally. Unfortunately, nobody really knows. During his first presidency, he made bold and sometimes erratic statements, such as threatening North Korea with "fire and fury" while also engaging in unprecedented peace talks with Kim Jong Un.

His unpredictability was more recently evident in his trade negotiations with Canada and Mexico, where he threatened tariffs and then suddenly reversed this threat. This style is consistent with what he outlined in his book, "The Art of the Deal," where he emphasized the importance of leverage, boldness, and maintaining a strong negotiating position.

His threats to impose high tariffs on various countries, his willingness to walk away from major trade deals, and his dramatic statements on issues like immigration and foreign policy, all fit into his negotiating style. His supporters argue that this unpredictability strengthened U.S. foreign policy, while critics believe it created instability and uncertainty on the world stage, which is potentially extremely dangerous.

The verdict is still out on who is right.

And it might not just be about negotiating. The use of outlandish statements can also be a distraction technique in addition to or instead of a negotiating tactic if he wants to distract from another unrelated problem the press or Congress is focused on. By making bold and often controversial remarks, he has repeatedly been able to shift media attention away from other issues or problems. This tactic often creates a media frenzy, allowing him to pursue other goals without as much scrutiny.

The outlandish remarks in his first term were many, including injecting disinfectant to treat COVID-19, stating “I know more about ISIS than the generals do” or when he described the state of our nation as “American carnage.” Already in his second term, his suggestion that we annex Canada and Greenland certainly served to overshadow other news and diverted public attention.

Whether Trump is crazy like a fox or just crazy remains to be seen.

____

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

_____

©2025 The Fulcrum. Visit at thefulcrum.us. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.