The "Fafo" Doctrine in Practice
Friends,
The aggressive "Fafo" ("Fuck around and find out") mantra has become a hallmark of the Trump administration’s approach to foreign policy, emphasizing military dominance over diplomatic nuance. By adopting this confrontational stance, the administration aimed to project strength and deterrence, most notably in its decision to engage in a joint attack on Iran alongside Israel in February 2026. However, the reliance on this doctrine has exposed significant strategic vulnerabilities, proving that impulsive, hubristic decision-making often leads to complex, unmanageable crises.
Consequences of Erratic Diplomacy
The aftermath of the military operation against Iran serves as a sobering example of how military force without a comprehensive strategy can backfire. Instead of securing stability, the administration now faces a emboldened adversary capable of disrupting global shipping and asserting new, difficult demands.
Strategic Oversights: The president bypassed critical consultations with allies and ignored warnings from his own staff regarding potential Iranian responses, such as the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.
Erosion of Credibility: Constant shifts between threats of total devastation and claims that Iran is "begging" for a deal have undermined the gravity of American commitments on the global stage.
Logistical Constraints: Reports suggest that the U.S. faces a depletion of essential munitions, such as cruise missiles and Patriot interceptors, limiting the military's actual capacity to sustain the high-intensity operations the president frequently threatens.
Long-term Global and Economic Impacts
The administration's volatile decision-making has triggered a shift in how the world perceives American leadership. Traditional allies are increasingly seeking independent security arrangements, such as the recent defense pact between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Pakistan, to compensate for the perceived unreliability of the U.S.
The economic implications are equally concerning, with some observers beginning to view the U.S. through the lens of an "emerging market." This skepticism stems from concerns over arbitrary policy shifts and the administration's fiscal path. With an annual budget deficit of 6% of GDP and rising debt-servicing costs that exceed the Pentagon's budget, the U.S. faces its own version of "finding out"—a potential financial reckoning necessitated by prolonged fiscal instability.
In summary, the "Fafo" doctrine has served as a catalyst for a decline in American credibility and strategic leverage. By prioritizing vanity and vengeance over disciplined governance, the current administration has left the U.S. vulnerable to both regional military escalation and long-term economic instability.
Looking ahead, the likely outcome of these shifts is not a return to the old American-led order, but the emergence of a more progressive international system shaped by evolving global realities. Several scholars articulate possible frameworks for this post-neoliberal future. Dani Rodrik, for example, argues for rebalancing global trade with greater respect for national sovereignty, envisioning economic integration that works in tandem with democratic legitimacy and domestic priorities. Thomas Piketty, meanwhile, advocates for robust global tax and wealth regulation to address deepening inequality, suggesting that cross-border cooperation on fiscal and social policy is essential.
Beyond economic reconfiguration, thinkers such as Vijay Prashad and Amitav Acharya envision a post-Western, multipolar world. Their perspectives emphasize the importance of international cooperation free from U.S. hegemony—where regional powers and diverse civilizational blocs negotiate norms, security arrangements, and economic ties on more equal terms. This vision does not imply a fragmented or chaotic order, but rather a pluralistic and progressive system in which shared challenges—climate change, inequality, and conflict—are tackled through collective action and mutual respect.
In sum, the failures of the "Fafo" doctrine may ultimately accelerate the transition to a more inclusive and balanced international order, drawing inspiration from these diverse scholarly perspectives.
This is precisely why I decided to run for Congress in 2026, and why I am running again in 2028. I believe that, paradoxically, the gift within the curse of Trump’s destructive approach is an unprecedented opportunity to rebuild. While his modus operandi has always been to tear down, we now have a chance to create something better—but only if we fight for the future we want to see in the world. I invite you to join this movement: share, donate, and get involved. This campaign is not about me; it is about us—about building a new, more just order together.
In Solidarity,
Gamy Enriquez, MPA
