‘Unconventionally constrained’: Trump’s new doctrine of ‘precision deterrence’
From Soleimani to Maduro: Trump’s New Doctrine of Precision Deterrence
On January 3rd, 2020, President Donald Trump eliminated Iran’s Qassam Soleimani. On January 3rd, 2026, Trump seized Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. These two divergent events, separated by exactly six years, reveal a new dynamic in American foreign and defense policy. With his 2020 strike on Soleimani, President Trump established an approach that has become clearer in his second term with the bombing of Fordow (Operation Midnight Hammer) and the remarkable raid to seize Nicolas Maduro (Operation Absolute Resolve). I call it Precision Deterrence: a dramatic level of force typically reserved for large scale operations, unconventionally constrained to limited aims.
While previous administrations have utilized precision strikes for limited objectives, the small scope was typically intended to restrict collateral damage, avoid large commitments, and was assumed to yield correspondingly limited benefits. The tradeoff was accepted as a means of avoiding war. Yet Trump’s activities on the other hand, are shaped with the severity and express intent to impose an asymmetric, psychological impact on foreign rivals, heightening the perception of unpredictability from America and at the same time amplifying perceptions of vulnerability in the victim. It is a sudden, shocking escalation that ends as soon as it begins. Precision Deterrence bears echoes of Richard Nixon’s famed “Madman Theory,” but with a bravado only made possible by 21st century military technology. Nixon’s theory frequently took the form of bluff, in a sense, it was the applied use of brinkmanship. Trump’s theory becomes readily kinetic, something more akin to a fait accompli.
At each stage of various international crises during Trump’s two terms, the primacists have called for major interventions, while the restrainers have decried the ghost of another Iraq. Threading a needle between the two camps, and applied with his own penchant for negotiation leverage, President Trump has created a pattern of single-punch actions designed to maximize impact while limiting opportunity for entanglement. Historical comparisons put a finer point on the principle.
Precision Deterrence thinks in strategic outcomes rather than tactical responses. The Obama administration eliminated hundreds nonstate terrorists with precision drone strikes. In contrast, Trump assassinated a uniformed military general of a nation state. The former was tactical elimination of national security threats. The latter was a strategic downpayment on constraining the Iranian regime’s intellectual capacity to plot future destruction.
Precision Deterrence generates an unnerving mismatch of means and ends by leveraging the strengths of the modern Joint Force. When President George H.W. Bush seized Manuel Noreiga of Panama in Operation Just Cause, it required 27,000 troops invading the country. A true boots on the ground operation with 23 U.S. servicemembers killed in action. In contrast, Trump’s Absolute Resolve was supported by a large naval flotilla, but the capture of Nicolas Maduro was executed in a couple of hours by a daring helicopter raid befitting a Tom Clancy novel. An operation involving well over one hundred aircraft, disabling of Caracas’ power grid, seamless integration of all military branches led by the 160th SOAR Nightstalkers and Delta Force, and achieved nearly flawlessly with zero American casualties. It was a textbook demonstration of misdirection rarely accomplished in the age of omnipresent media and leaks: all public signaling previously indicated that if military action were taken, it would lean towards more traditional land strikes on cartel targets.
Why does Precision Deterrence matter? It has unlocked a new range of conceptual opportunities for leverage in international affairs for the President that are only just beginning to be applied. The unifying theme of the Soleimani strike, Fordow GBU-57 bombings, and Maduro seizure is the total lack of cost in American life. If a mastermind can be eliminated, a nuclear weapons program degraded indefinitely, and a nation state leader seized in exchange for thus far limited political blowback, the gains far outstrip the losses. In the case of Maduro, every leader in the Western Hemisphere that has a less than honest relationship with cartels is now on notice; to borrow a phrase, they can run but they can’t hide. Negotiations suddenly seem eminently reasonable by comparison. Critics will decry imperialism and extortion; world history sees little distinction between military operations and coercive diplomacy.
One final benefit of Precision Deterrence is the second order effects. Trump’s approach has denuded Iran of its weapons program and Venezuela’s gangs of their leader, and neither is in a position to credibly retaliate. Escalation dominance remains one sided. But Precision Deterrence also presents the respective Great Power patrons of these small rogue states, China and Russia, with an unenviable tradeoff. Does Moscow risk conflict with the United States over its interest in Iranian drones? Does Beijing risk the “madman” of Nixon’s theory because it desires a naval base on Venezuela’s Atlantic coast? By targeting their weak partner states, American strategy under Trump is constraining the freedom of maneuver for China and Russia, not only as a “Trump Corollary” of the Monroe Doctrine as outlined in the 2025 National Security Strategy, but as a universally applicable, global tool for American power projection.
Taken in isolation, these activities are the spasmodic application of American force. Taken together, they represent a paradigm shift in the deployment of strategic leverage to keep rivals off balance and eliminate threats with minimal cost or long-term entrapment. The future is unknown, but one thing is clear: Trump’s use of Precision Deterrence will continue to rewrite the rules of the game.
Garrison Moratto holds a Master of Science International Relations from Liberty University. He is the host of The New Diplomatist podcast and author of the Distant Shores Substack.