Often, in the decisions of political leaders, even the most powerful in the world, the carrying out of a comprehensive analysis in order to provide the right answers to the major geopolitical question "What comes after?" (What comes after?) In a word, when a decision is made for an alliance and especially a military intervention against another country, the right answers to this question must have been given in advance for the political, economic, diplomatic and military aspects, taken together in a short-term and long-term plan. That way, we will be prepared for the different scenarios that may arise after the aforementioned interventions with further effective actions.

Therefore, in addition to government staff, the opinion of agencies and experts, allies and a geostrategic consultation is also required; because without these elements, there can be no success in the full sense of the word but rather “a Pyrrhic victory”. Neglect and underestimation in this regard is fraught with extremely serious consequences, both abroad and within the country. Here we are talking about the leaders of Western and democratic countries; rather than dictators and autocratic leaders, experience shows that they do not want to care about them and the human, material and financial costs of their geopolitical decisions. Without going far back in time, the Russian aggression against Ukraine constitutes the most recent and significant example in this field. It began as a “special military operation” with the aim of Kiev falling within a few days; However, over 4 years have passed and the end is not in sight, already with major Russian losses, which are being hit from Ukraine to Moscow and on June 3rd even in Putin's Saint Petersburg!

Returning to the practice of Western countries, this critical issue has become even more apparent in the last 17 months after President Donald Trump returned to the White House. In almost all of his geopolitical decisions and actions, the lack of comprehensive analysis and especially of accurate answers to the above-mentioned question is striking. This serious lack is mainly due to his transactional doctrine, which is based on the realization of quick deals, "blitz", a mania for facade, show and fuss! As the prominent German professors in this field, Thomas Jäger and Philipp Gassert, claim, "Trump begins an action without knowing the end; he acts impulsively, with strategic impatience, without thought, without a plan and without a specific goal." He also uses diplomacy for spectacle and to attract public attention.

In his harsh criticism of President Trump regarding the intervention in Iran last week, which may not have been made in public, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz rightly stated that "when you enter a conflict, you also have to know how to get out." Meanwhile, Trump does not resolve crises, because before one is over, he announces the beginning of another, as is the case with Cuba; this is what happened in February, when, before the echoes of the creation of the Gaza Peace Board had died down, the US broke off talks and launched a military attack on Iran, and now it is even dealing with Cuba!
Let's be specific and focus on the 5 main moments of the last months, when the US Administration has undertaken various political, economic and military measures without answering the above vital and decisive question for their real and long-term success. We are starting from the most recent case, the US-Israeli military intervention against Iran, which has now entered its sixth week, with no sign of its end and with gloomy predictions.
Many experts claim that, encouraged by the success of last year's 12-day war against Iran and its significant weakening, Trump thought that victory would be easy and quick thanks to the undisputed American military supremacy. He had even announced that the war would last only 3-4 weeks, with the conviction that after the execution of the main Iranian leaders, the destruction of the air, naval and armament fleets, including the capture and confiscation of enriched uranium, everything would be a "blitz" for the United States. This erroneous judgment caused the American Administration not to bother with the drafting and implementation of a comprehensive plan, with entry and exit strategies, not only with military objectives, but also political, economic, diplomatic, etc. Nothing was said about regime change, about the role of the opposition and its leaders, etc. The main thing is that no one, not even Trump himself, ever asked what would happen, especially if the objectives were not achieved and Iran offered resistance or spread the war in the economic field, as is happening. It is strange how they did not think that the Iranian regime in its 47 years had built not one or two, but many layers of leadership, which has made it possible for it to not weaken politically and institutionally, but rather to strengthen further and for the hard-line wing to become even more dangerous. As a result, now several currents operate in official Tehran, where the harder wing prevails, which makes diplomatic dialogue difficult, to the extent that all experts admit that diplomatic communication was easier during Khamenei's rule.

Even worse, Trump ignored the suggestions of his advisers regarding the possibility of Tehran blocking the Strait of Hormuz, with serious consequences for the region and the global economy. Therefore, its blockade by Iran is compared to the effects of an atomic bomb, which Secretary Rubio has also acknowledged.
As a result, the prolongation of the war and the recent “no war, no peace” situation there have begun to have serious consequences within the US as well. A little more than November will be the midterm elections for the US Congress, where the prospects are not promising for the Republicans. The latest polls show that dissatisfaction with President Trump’s current policies, especially with the management of the economy, the increase in inflation/prices and the rising cost of living, has plummeted, falling to historic lows, respectively below 40 and 30 percent. However, as a well-known Republican has claimed, if this trend continues, then in the midterm elections in November MAGA will be massacred by the Democrats.

Moving on to the economic field, it is known that since the beginning of his second presidency, President Trump imposed high tariffs on all countries, using them as a weapon against anyone who opposed his policies. However, he again did not anticipate the situations and did not foresee what would happen next. He neglected the consequences of these tariffs for the economy and the American labor market. According to many well-known American and foreign experts, these tariffs will not stimulate domestic production and foreign investors will be reluctant to go to the USA.

Abroad, after China, the EU has also warned that if nothing can be achieved through consultations, as happened with its proposal for "zero tariffs on industrial goods", it will build "a new paradigm of world trade" and will retaliate with strict punitive measures. With an extremely wide, diverse and frightening catalog for the US, which risks "coming out with red shoes" from the so-called WW FEE (World Tariff War). In addition to the above, this could be accompanied by other forms of punitive measures such as boycotts of American goods and services, a decline in foreign investment in the US, due to ongoing uncertainties, rising prices and inflation or "stagnation", the rise in the cost of living, the departure of tourists from America, not to mention the great damage to the image of the US.
This alarm has been sounded in time by even the most prominent economic experts and Trump supporters. Former IMF chief economist and prominent Harvard professor Kenneth Rogoff bluntly states that “this is the worst economic experiment since World War II.” Even the chief manager of the US Federal Investment Funds, billionaire Ackman, has declared that “with these tariffs, Trump is heading towards an ‘atomic war’ with every country in the world, that this is the biggest mistake that comes from bad political arithmetic.” As a result, America First risks turning into “America Alone” for which no one in the US voted.
The same lack has also been the failed policy of ultimatums by President Trump. Numerous ultimatums, which have been changed, postponed, accompanied by harsh threats against Iran such as "I will return to the Stone Age" and "I will wipe out Iranian civilization" which, if carried out, experts would consider war crimes or genocide and in the end were not implemented at all! This has happened because the effectiveness of the ultimatums has been taken for granted a priori, without thinking about what will be done with them if and when they are carried out and if not. As a result, a paradoxical situation has been created for the USA, which interrupted diplomatic negotiations with Tehran in February but is now forced and is begging to return to diplomacy! Then why was all that war fought, when Iran, despite the heavy losses, does not surrender, and even plays with time and has patience on its side, unlike the impatient Trump!

Not at all thoughtless about the serious geopolitical consequences for the US and the world was President Trump's threat a few months ago to invade Greenland by force if Denmark and the EU did not sell it to him. Even then, Trump had not thought about what would happen after that. That agreed, thanks to its military power, the US could invade Greenland. What then? What would happen to NATO, whose European members would be forced to implement the famous Article 5 to protect themselves from its greatest ally! What about the image of the US, what about politics and public opinion in the US and abroad? Above all, the negative precedent that would be created, increasing the geopolitical appetite of other countries for similar invasions? Think of China against Taiwan, Russia against the Baltic countries, Serbia against Kosovo and other regions as the targets of the occasion! When would the law of the strongest challenge the force of international law? And all this when the US and its allies had and have every opportunity to smooth over and resolve disputes amicably, just as they have in the last 80 years, strengthening and expanding the American and NATO presence in Greenland, without the need for its occupation.

The three most recent cases concern the American threat to expel Spain from NATO, Washington's withdrawal from the Alliance, and the reduction/removal of American troops from Germany. These are again infantile warnings because they again have no answer to the question "What next?"; so what will be the consequences, now also for the United States, if Spain or the United States leave NATO? In fact, here we are dealing more with momentary emotional attitudes, with venting anger and resentment towards allies than with real political logic. We say this because the expulsion of a country from NATO is not included in any clause of the relevant Treaty. But even if such a thing were to be discussed, as for any NATO decision, the consensus of all member countries would be needed. Here Trump has failed. What the US can do, thanks to its weight and contribution to NATO, is to block or veto various appointments of Spanish military officials to NATO's leadership structures. However, this, in addition to breaking trust and cooperation between allies, would still be impossible since other countries will not provide consensus, which has already happened; consequently, apart from damaging the cohesion and image of the Alliance, nothing good would come from this action, and the US would even lose important military bases in Spain.

The same is expected to happen with the American threat to leave NATO or reduce American troops from military bases in Germany, because they are "double-edged swords". Of course, in such a case, NATO would cease to exist, with unpredictable consequences for everyone, but also for the United States, especially in the face of strategic threats from China, Russia, etc. But also for incalculable losses for them, since the allies would no longer buy the vast majority of weapons and armaments worth hundreds of billions of dollars from the United States. Likewise, the numerous and necessary American bases in Europe, including those in Germany, if closed or reduced would no longer be available to the United States, significantly weakening its tactical and strategic defense capacities.
On the other hand, when attacking and threatening European allies, President Trump forgets or underestimates their vital importance for American strategic interests. For this, it is enough to recall the warning of the former NATO Commander for Europe in 2014-2017, American General Ben Hodges when he said that “No matter how powerful, the US cannot face major strategic challenges alone; it needs allies and the most loyal and reliable allies are the Europeans”! That is why lawmakers in Washington are sounding the alarm bells loudly after Trump’s decision to withdraw the first 5.000 troops from Germany, because they significantly weaken European security and defense capacities, but also American ones!

Finally, these examples, which are neither the only nor the last, are enough to understand the vital importance of timely answers to the crucial geopolitical question "What happens next?"