Source: Radio New Zealand
US President Donald Trump on March 4, 2026. ANDREW CABALLERO-REYNOLDS / AFP
An international law expert says the US President appears to be employing what’s known as the “Madman Theory” in an attempt to end the war in Iran.
In an expletive-laden post overnight, Donald Trump vowed to strike Iran’s power plants and bridges if the country’s leaders don’t reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Waikato University Professor Al Gillespie told RNZ such actions would technically amount to war crimes, but he believed there was a deeper strategy at play.
“Madman Theory” was a strategy brought to fame by Richard Nixon’s unsuccessful attempt to end the Vietnam war, Gillespie said.
The strategy involves behaving in an irrational, erratic manner, and threatening to go to extreme lengths to end a war or conflict.
“The idea is that you don’t know whether the person will or won’t do it, and the opposition will be scared into making a deal.”
The issue with Trump’s use of the strategy in the case of Iran, is that it relies upon a rational opposition, Gillespie said.
Waikato University Professor Al Gillespie. Alexander Gillespie
“In the case of either religious regimes or autocratic regimes, they often don’t have that fear.
“And then there’s the concern that they don’t actually believe the person making the threat.”
He said he did not believe the strategy would be successful, because the Iranian regime did not care about what the US did to its civilian population.
“Iran feels emboldened by Mr Trump’s increasingly extreme rhetoric … I think they almost want it right now.”
But there was also a concern that Trump might not be bluffing, he acknowledged.
“He doesn’t respond in a rational way often. And the one thing that’s certain is that he’s a poor loser – and he may lash out in unexpected ways.”
A post by US President Donald Trump on his Truth Social platform. Screenshot
The elevation of US threats against civilian infrastructure is part of a wider trend away from the conventions of modern international law.
“Everyone’s doing this now. Whether you’re dealing with the war in Gaza, or whether you’re dealing with the war in Ukraine, increasingly the practice is to put the weight of the war on civilians, not on combatants.”
There was an increasing gap between the theory of international law and the reality of its practice, he said.
“The list of good guys is getting very small.”
If the US were to follow through on Trump’s threats, Gillespie suspected Iran would further increase strikes against infrastructure in the region – and would extend its stranglehold on the Strait of Hormuz and its blockage of the Red Sea.
“The implications for this is that the price of oil, and anything that’s relying on international transport through that part of the world will continue to increase.”
In the wake of Trump’s threats, the New Zealand government needed to be calling for a return to international law, Gillespie said.
“We need to be trying to find ways that this can be negotiated out, and we should be supporting efforts at the Security Council.
“And then we need to be working out what principles we are prepared to defend in terms of freedom of the high seas, because there is a movement right now to try to open up the straits through the Security Council, of which there is some ambiguous language.”
He advised strongly against any military involvement in the Strait of Hormuz until a ceasefire agreement was reached.
“If it’s after and it’s a peacekeeping force, then there may be a role for New Zealand to play.”
Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
– Published by EveningReport.nz and AsiaPacificReport.nz, see: MIL OSI in partnership with Radio New Zealand
