On Tuesday, a deeply divided world desperate for leadership and new ideas met in a deeply divided United States also desperate for leadership and new ideas.

What they got was Trump.

We learned two, important insights from President Trump’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA): One, “America First” does not mean “America only” and; two, Trump’s vision for American leadership in the 21st century is less coach, more referee.

ADVERTISEMENT

Trump does not see the United States as the coach within the international community — the country trying to rally the world towards a vision for the world, pushing forward teamwork and collaboration, and trying to help and optimize allies and partners playing on the field.

Rather, Trump sees the world as a “coalition of strong and independent nations” competitively pursuing their own interests — with the United States playing the role of chief referee on the world stage.

And right out of the gate in the UNGA speech, President Trump began throwing flags, pulling out red cards, blowing the whistle, and putting “Rocket man” Kim Jong Un, Iran, and Venezuela in the penalty box.

North Korea compares Trump's UN speech to a barking dog: https://t.co/bezCQi7oPY pic.twitter.com/WnyCQZHuGB — The Hill (@thehill) September 21, 2017

But what does it exactly mean to be put in the “penalty box” in Trump’s world?

With North Korea as a case study, it appears to be sanctions, public shaming, and then, if they continue, “no choice but to totally destroy” them.

At first glance, Trump’s clarity and lack of moral browbeating appeared to be something of a departure from the highly ambiguous, half-hearted red lines of Barack Obama Barack Hussein ObamaDemocratic Senate campaign arm outraises GOP by M in August A federal court may have declared immigration arrests unconstitutional Blunt says vote on Trump court nominee different than 2016 because White House, Senate in 'political agreement' MORE and the overly idealistic, democracy-agenda of George W. Bush.

But upon further review, it appears the referee may ultimately have to reverse his call.

Is Trump really going to go to war with North Korea? The loss of life, scale of destruction, and impact on the global economy would be tremendous.

Is Trump really going to totally nullify the Iran deal? Iran’s race to gain a nuclear bomb would re-commence immediately and only accelerate — increasing the threat to Israel and almost certainly lead to Saudi Arabia obtaining nuclear bomb.

My intuition is that Trump ultimately is going to be less referee and more International Olympic Committee anti-doping commission: lots of rhetoric, but a slap on the wrist in the end.

Bill O'Reilly: "Trump's UN speech finally puts 'rocket man' on notice" https://t.co/SJnt9eGkbP pic.twitter.com/MvnaQy2IEo — The Hill (@thehill) September 21, 2017

So, in the North Korea situation, it is probably going to look like an on-going pressure campaign with China, maintaining the reported back-channel dialogue with Pyongyang, military exercises, and threatening to shoot down North Korean missiles or raising the specter of a naval blockade to have the sheen of a military response. Trump did announce new sanctions on North Korea Thursday, but, in the end, Kim Jong Un maintains his nuclear capability.

In the Iran situation, it is probably going to look like de-certifying Iran’s compliance with the deal, yet continuing to waive the sanctions (the Europeans are uninterested in re-imposing sanctions on Iran, which would be required to truly pressure Iran). Iran maintains its nuclear capability and the current, core benefit of the deal for Iran – sanctions relief – is maintained (Iran already received all of the cash associated with the deal during the Obama administration).

The real story here is the strategic conundrum in which we find ourselves in the 21st Century: the problems are so consequential that we can ill-afford to fail; yet, a decisive response is so costly that we can ill-afford to fully resolve them.

McMaster: Trump decision on Iran deal comes after "lengthy discussions" https://t.co/PUmy5SGm39 pic.twitter.com/H15RueRCIV — The Hill (@thehill) September 21, 2017

So, in the final analysis, the truth is that we must manage out these problems. That is the ugly reality of the 21st Century. The United States and its allies are rarely going to be in a position to “solve problems.” The fact of the matter is that we must have a robust national security and diplomatic apparatus to manage the many challenges we face today. And we must have leaders that are creative and have a coherent and strategic worldview so that we have the opportunity to address problems early and possibly even prevent them from happening in the first place.

“America First” cannot mean “American brinksmanship.” And being a referee cannot include reversing your call, upon further review, every time. Words matter on the world stage. It should be a redline to use a redline. And if in the extremely rare circumstance that a redline must be established, the president must be resolved to see it through before it is drawn (we learned that from Barack Obama with Syria). Because, otherwise, I fear our adversaries and enemies will call our bluff every time.

In fact, I think they already are.

Alex Gallo is senior associate at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and served as a professional staff member on the House Armed Services Committee where he wrote legislation and conducted oversight of U.S. defense policy in the Middle East and Asia-Pacific regions. He is a West Point graduate and combat veteran and a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School.