Trump's 'One-and-Done' Military Doctrine Reshapes American War Strategy

Paul Riverbank, 6/29/2025Trump's "One-and-Done" military strategy: Quick, decisive strikes replace traditional extended warfare campaigns.

The Evolution of Trump's Military Strategy: A New American Doctrine

Having covered American military policy for over two decades, I've observed numerous shifts in strategic thinking. Yet Donald Trump's emerging "One-and-Done" approach to military intervention marks a fascinating departure from conventional wisdom.

Consider the recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. In what might be called classic Trump fashion, B-2 bombers swooped in under cover of darkness, delivered their massive payload of 30,000-pound bunker-busters, and disappeared before dawn. No extended campaign. No nation-building. Just one decisive strike and out.

I spoke with Kori Schake at the American Enterprise Institute last week about this pattern. "Trump sees military action like a gunfight at the O.K. Corral," she told me, leaning back in her chair. "One shot, one kill – then walk away." It's a mindset that's reshaping how America projects power globally.

The contrast with traditional American military doctrine couldn't be starker. Where previous administrations might have planned extended campaigns with clear phases and exit strategies, Trump's approach feels more like precision surgery – get in, hit hard, get out.

His track record tells the story. The al-Baghdadi raid. The Soleimani strike. Each operation was bold, decisive, and importantly, limited in scope. Though it's worth noting that this approach didn't emerge fully formed – Trump's first military action, a complicated Yemen raid, ended in tragedy with a dead Navy SEAL and a destroyed $70 million aircraft.

John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser, shared some fascinating insights with me about the president's decision-making process. "He agonizes over these decisions until the last possible moment," Bolton explained, "but once the trigger's pulled, there's no going back."

The administration's current setup seems custom-built for this approach. J.D. Vance has become the administration's voice on foreign policy, carefully framing these strikes as targeted operations rather than steps toward regime change. When I pressed Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly on this strategy, she maintained that "the President's judgment has been vindicated time and again."

But here's where it gets interesting. General Frank McKenzie, who commanded U.S. forces during the Soleimani operation, points out something crucial – Trump has actually struck Iran twice, something no other president has done. This creates what McKenzie calls a "unique credibility" in dealing with Tehran.

Yet as someone who's watched Middle East politics unfold over decades, I have to wonder about the long-term implications. Sure, these strikes haven't triggered worst-case scenarios, but Iran's nuclear ambitions have proven remarkably resilient. As one senior official recently confided to me, "Iran isn't going away, and neither is this problem."

This new doctrine represents a fundamental shift in how America wields military power. While it aligns perfectly with Trump's promise to avoid endless wars, the jury's still out on whether these surgical strikes can achieve lasting strategic objectives in today's increasingly complex global landscape.

Only time will tell if this "One-and-Done" approach becomes a lasting feature of American military strategy or simply a footnote in the evolution of U.S. foreign policy. But one thing's certain – it's forcing us to rethink everything we thought we knew about American military intervention.

The Evolution of Trump's Military Strategy: A New American DoctrineHaving covered American military policy for over two decades, I've observed numerous shifts in strategic thinking. Yet Donald Trump's emerging "One-and-Done" approach to military intervention marks a fascinating departure from conventional wisdom.Consider the recent bombing of Iranian nuclear facilities. In what might be called classic Trump fashion, B-2 bombers swooped in under cover of darkness, delivered their massive payload of 30,000-pound bunker-busters, and disappeared before dawn. No extended campaign. No nation-building. Just one decisive strike and out.I spoke with Kori Schake at the American Enterprise Institute last week about this pattern. "Trump sees military action like a gunfight at the O.K. Corral," she told me, leaning back in her chair. "One shot, one kill – then walk away." It's a mindset that's reshaping how America projects power globally.The contrast with traditional American military doctrine couldn't be starker. Where previous administrations might have planned extended campaigns with clear phases and exit strategies, Trump's approach feels more like precision surgery – get in, hit hard, get out.His track record tells the story. The al-Baghdadi raid. The Soleimani strike. Each operation was bold, decisive, and importantly, limited in scope. Though it's worth noting that this approach didn't emerge fully formed – Trump's first military action, a complicated Yemen raid, ended in tragedy with a dead Navy SEAL and a destroyed $70 million aircraft.John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser, shared some fascinating insights with me about the president's decision-making process. "He agonizes over these decisions until the last possible moment," Bolton explained, "but once the trigger's pulled, there's no going back."The administration's current setup seems custom-built for this approach. J.D. Vance has become the administration's voice on foreign policy, carefully framing these strikes as targeted operations rather than steps toward regime change. When I pressed Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly on this strategy, she maintained that "the President's judgment has been vindicated time and again."But here's where it gets interesting. General Frank McKenzie, who commanded U.S. forces during the Soleimani operation, points out something crucial – Trump has actually struck Iran twice, something no other president has done. This creates what McKenzie calls a "unique credibility" in dealing with Tehran.Yet as someone who's watched Middle East politics unfold over decades, I have to wonder about the long-term implications. Sure, these strikes haven't triggered worst-case scenarios, but Iran's nuclear ambitions have proven remarkably resilient. As one senior official recently confided to me, "Iran isn't going away, and neither is this problem."This new doctrine represents a fundamental shift in how America wields military power. While it aligns perfectly with Trump's promise to avoid endless wars, the jury's still out on whether these surgical strikes can achieve lasting strategic objectives in today's increasingly complex global landscape.Only time will tell if this "One-and-Done" approach becomes a lasting feature of American military strategy or simply a footnote in the evolution of U.S. foreign policy. But one thing's certain – it's forcing us to rethink everything we thought we knew about American military intervention.