SHAH ALAM – Despite fiery rhetoric and escalating tensions over tariff policies, the United States (US) is unlikely to resort to military action in response to economic pressure from other countries, says a geopolitical expert.
Professor Dr Jatswan Singh from the School of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Taylor’s University said the use of force over trade disputes remains highly improbable, even under the provocative leadership of US President Donald Trump.
"While the Trump administration has a history of dramatic and provocative statements, including talk of annexing Greenland, these are largely rhetorical and not expected to translate into military action," he told Sinar Daily.
While acknowledging that the Trump administration had a history of making dramatic and provocative statements, such as talk of annexing Greenland, he believed that these were likely rhetorical and not expected to translate into actual military action.
‘While it is true that the US military is the most powerful in the world, using military force to address economic or trade disputes would be an extreme and highly unlikely move.
"That said, the possibility of military action always technically remains on the table, as it does for any country seeking to assert its foreign policy goals. However, it is important to remember that the US is not the only military power in the world. Nations like China, Russia and India have significantly expanded their military capabilities in recent decades.
"China's global reach continues to grow, Russia's influence in Europe has become more pronounced over the last 20 to 30 years and India has emerged as a major military force in its own right,” he told Sinar Daily.
In this context, Jatswan said that any American military action, especially tied to economic matters, would need to take into account the broader global balance of power.
He cautioned that the notion of the US engaging in multiple military confrontations at once would stretch even the most powerful armed forces.
"The idea of the US engaging in multiple military conflicts simultaneously is highly impractical. Fighting wars on too many fronts would stretch even the most advanced military force to its limits.
"Therefore, while the use of force remains an option, it is far from being a preferred or likely one, especially in matters of trade policy,” he added.
Reflecting on Trump’s first term, Jatswan observed that his administration often adopted strong military postures and issued threats, especially concerning the South China Sea and rising tensions with China.
However, Jatswan viewed these actions as more symbolic than strategic. They were intended to project strength and assert dominance, rather than to actually engage in combat.
"Ultimately, while military threats may be used as leverage, the likelihood of actual war breaking out between major powers over tariff disputes seems remote.
"It is far more probable that such issues will continue to be managed through political and economic channels, rather than through direct military confrontation,” he said.
On Jan 13, 2017, during Trump’s first presidency, US-China relations grew tense after the then Secretary of State nominee Rex Tillerson, suggested blocking China’s access to its artificial islands in the South China Sea.
China reacted strongly, with state media warning of a potential ‘large-scale war’ and the government labelling the idea provocative and unrealistic. The confrontation signalled a serious escalation risk if the US pursued such actions.
Fast forward to April 9, during Trump’s second term, the US-China trade war escalated significantly as he introduced a 34 per cent tariff on Chinese goods and announced a "liberation day" policy, which temporarily suspended global tariffs for all countries except China.
China retaliated with equal force, targeting US exports and businesses. The tit-for-tat measures deepened economic and geopolitical tensions, with both nations adopting nationalistic stances.
Analysts warned that the ongoing escalation could spill over into a violent conflict, especially concerning Taiwan and the South China Sea.
Meanwhile, on April 10, Trump revived his earlier plan to acquire Greenland, this time implementing an official US policy aimed at persuading Greenland’s residents to voluntarily join the US.
The initiative, led by the National Security Council, offered financial incentives and public relations campaigns to promote the benefits of US affiliation, despite Denmark’s firm rejection.
Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen condemned the move as threatening and coercive, warning of strained US-Denmark relations.
Trump, supported by Vice President JD Vance and National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, argued the plan served US national security and economic interests.