President Trump's approach to Iran represents a conscious and deliberate break from 25 years of American foreign policy doctrine - the post-9/11 principle that the United States bears responsibility for preventing chaos in countries where it uses military force.

Douglas J. Feith, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute who served as undersecretary of defense for policy from 2001 to 2005, described this doctrinal shift in The Washington Post, as reported by "Hvylya".

Feith draws the contrast sharply. After 9/11, when U.S. troops overthrew the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, President George W. Bush "believed the U.S. had a responsibility to avert chaos." He was "intent on helping those countries lay foundations for governments that would neither be repressive nor give safe harbor or support to anti-American terrorists." Bush felt personally "responsible to assist their people" and shared the conviction that "failed states are breeding grounds for anti-Americanism, terrorism and other pathologies that endanger U.S. interests."

Trump's thinking, Feith writes, "is altogether different." The president "shows no concern about chaos." He sees the air campaign as giving Iranians "a chance to take control away from the ayatollahs" - a gift, in Trump's view, not the start of an obligation. Trump "doesn't think the U.S. owes Iranians an on-the-ground effort to prevent chaos or to make their country stable, let alone democratic and prosperous."

There is no indication, Feith adds, that U.S. officials are drawing up plans for the range of likely future challenges. Trump's focus "tends to be on dangers that directly affect Americans and their interests - things he could handle through use of force." The president appears confident that American power alone ensures he "will be able to do whatever he considers necessary."

This bet carries acknowledged risks - including the possibility that Iran fragments into civil war, generating a refugee crisis of Syrian proportions. But as Feith frames it, "there are risks of inaction and risks in every possible course of action." Trump, he concludes, is trying something new, "on the grounds that what happens after the air campaign isn't necessarily a U.S. problem."

Also read: The Pottery Barn Rule Is Dead: Why Trump Plans to Break Iran Without Owning the Aftermath