For thousands of years, people have observed that small causes can produce large, unexpected results.

What can a human being, or a president like Trump, do when he finds himself, by surprise, facing many problems under which a decision must be made?

This is what Trump is facing today while he is at the head of the international system that is under threat, and just as human relations have interactions, theories, decisions and repercussions, international relations have interactions, theories, decisions and repercussions.

Among the international relations theories is “chaos theory, which has at its edge what is called self-organization, which indicates the possibility of order emerging from within chaos.”

The American historian Henry Adams (1918-1858) expressed this scientific meaning of chaos by saying: Chaos often generates life.

Chaos theory has a region of bifurcation, or deep chaos, that accurately describes the event between chaos and order that shapes the future of our contemporary societies. 


When a system goes through a state and turmoil, as is the case with the international system today, a state of “attractor” leads its paths and at the point of transformation and bifurcation within chaos the future options or possibilities of the system are made and pushed either to a state of a new order through self-organization Or into chaos again.

This type of unconventional concept is based on the “principle of historical sensitivity in the broad concept of the word history; That is, to the conditions that govern the beginnings of events before their sequence.

"Any change in these initial conditions - however small - can have an unlimited effect on the consequences of events, and thus on the interim outcome of the journey of history."


“This concept is also based on the principle of unpredictability and foresight; Even if the conditions governing the beginnings of historical processes coincide, there is no guarantee that the journeys of history will follow the same path.

“If the days take us back a century or some century, there is no guarantee that the journey of history will end back to the station we are standing on now, a principle that contradicts the allegations raised about the end of history and reaching the last station.”

“History is not governed by the principle of journey to destination; This access station is always moving and changing with the change of data.”

Therefore, the journey, in turn, does not seem to us an end point, but rather a historical snail that may remind us of the essence of Hegel’s philosophy that transcends solid causal materialism and the idea of ​​linear modern progress.

Examples of these concepts are the killing of the Crown Prince of Austria, which led to the First World War, and a nail that fell from the shoe of a mare, so the whole shoe slipped after a while, and the horse was hurt and stopped running, so the knight was late in delivering his message to the army, so the army lost and the kingdom was lost.

Any country may be lost in the light of an international era that European and American academic, political and media circles say is an era of apprehension and apprehension similar to the era that prevailed before World War II.

And this international turmoil would lead to chaos, and whoever leads the international system today needs to initiate mechanisms and alliances to balance international forces, after the goals and patterns of conflict of the units of the international system have changed and threatened the international system.

Hans Morgenthau confirms this, saying that “nations always desire to excel from within the framework of the balance of power system for the purpose of influencing the de-facto system, and it is necessary for the chaos stage to pervade the international system before a new balance of power emerges.

And based on Morgenthau’s hypotheses, “the one who holds the reins of the international system, which occupies the main position in the balance of power and is able to deter and limit any conflict, is to initiate alliances with the national states that possess power, or with alliances to maintain peace.”

The collective security on which the Gulf Cooperation Council or the European Union was based may have passed its time today, after the collective security countries disagreed about the common dangers that threaten them.

And the states of collective security were not working to establish a new system of balance of power, but to express its existence, while potential new balance of power alliances are formed by states against other states such as the international alliances of 1991, 2003 and 2014.

The system of balance of power that Kissinger conceived and implemented by Trump is not a target, but it is desirable in so far as it preserves the sovereignty of states and thus achieves their interests, at a time when the international system is under threat.

Hence Morgenthau believes that if “containment policies for conflict fail, that in itself is a justification for the establishment and practice of a global balance of power policy.”

In his presentation of his perceptions of the balance of power theory, he points out that “international relations are based mainly on the permanence and continuity of conflict, and it is not like collective security systems.”

Is Trump establishing an infrastructure for a new global balance of power alliances by creating chaos with multiple withdrawals since taking office, astonishing his opponents and allies?

And one of his last decisions to create the required chaos after his withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the climate agreement, and from 19 other agreements, was his withdrawal in October from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Weapons Treaty with Russia signed in 1987, and then his withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria at the end of December 2018.

Trump's withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty with Russia may resemble Trump's withdrawal from the Lausanne nuclear agreement, just as Trump's double withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria may resemble Obama's withdrawal from Iraq at the end of 2011.

While Russia has welcomed Trump's double withdrawal from Afghanistan and Syria, it has called Trump's decision to withdraw from the 1987 nuclear treaty a dangerous one.

A Russian source told the state-run RIA Novosti news agency, "America dreams of being the only dominant power in the world, and this is the main motive for its withdrawal from the agreement."

Russian Senator Alexei Pushkov said in a tweet on Twitter that Trump's decision to withdraw from the treaty is "the second major blow to the strategic stability system in the world" after Washington's withdrawal from the "Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty" (IBM Treaty) in 2001.

But Trump said, “Russia did not respect the treaty, and we will terminate the agreement and develop these weapons, and we will not allow them to violate a nuclear agreement and go out and manufacture weapons while we are prohibited from doing so. We stayed in the agreement and respected it, but unfortunately Russia did not respect it.”

The New York Times also quoted US officials and Western diplomats as saying that “the United States wants to withdraw from the treaty to counter the increasing Chinese military influence in the Pacific region.

China, as the newspaper reports, is not a party to the treaty, and therefore it is not committed to not developing medium-range missiles.

China has responded to Trump's withdrawal from the 1987 Treaty by saying that this agreement contributes to maintaining strategic balances of power, and that the US withdrawal is unilaterally wrong and will have many negative effects, and that the biggest mistake is linking the reason for this withdrawal with China.

And his ally Europe joined Russia and China over Trump's plans for the three withdrawals, and called for intervention and to prevent new armaments with medium-range missiles, and not to open the door to Syrian chaos that might make Europe in the eye of a double storm.

Europe's double panic may be justified, as it may be the most affected by Trump's tripartite withdrawal. The return of these missiles to Europe will affect Europe's security, as the Americans will deploy medium-range missiles in Europe without permission.

Trump’s new and old withdrawals may block the way, after Europe has grown old, for Russia and China to compete with America for international leadership and its competition in Europe and the Middle East, and at the same time push it to bargain with it about the terms of the new era’s balancing alliances.

Trump is behaving politically like a businessman, focusing on competing with big rivals Putin, China and Europe and leaving other projects to local allies to cut costs on the cost-benefit basis.

This Trump policy may be one of the ideas of Henry Kissinger (whom Trump is communicating with), which states that restoring balance to the troubled international relations requires chaos that leads to conflicts that can only be settled by bargaining with the United States.

Hence, Trump is bargaining with his withdrawals from China, Russia and Europe to draw an active American presence internationally, after Europe was unable to engage in geopolitical competition and Russia, China and Iran expanded more than America allows.

But Trump has other accounts from his successive withdrawals, other than China, Russia, Iran and Europe. Trump's calculations are related to the upcoming presidential elections, with the advent of 2019 and the start of the actual candidacy race.

This means that Trump is driving the cart and his opponents at home and abroad have to re-adapt themselves to his decisions, pending the formation of relations and balances within the American political system and in the files of national security and foreign policy.

Trump imposes himself on the principle of an individual level analysis that overcomes the institutional American institutional dimension, and has disagreed with him in the Gulf, European, and Middle Eastern crises.

Trump's internal and external approach may place him with the list of the founding fathers of the United States of America, and with him the bet on overthrowing Trump, both internally and externally, is a losing bet, and opponents and allies must prepare themselves for the terms of the new international balances of power.

Writer Dr. Omar Abdel Sattar Mahmoud