Preliminary
On September 15th, a post on Trump's social platform "Real Social" detonated public opinion. He not only threatened to put the whole country into a state of emergency, but even threatened to impose comprehensive federal control on Washington, the capital.
Almost at the same time, a powerful pressure crossed the Pacific Ocean and fell on the Japanese government. The Trump administration sent a clear message through multiple channels: Japan must not recognize the "Palestinian state".
These two things seem to have nothing to do with each other, but in fact they are a set of combination boxing. Behind this is a political strategy played by Trump – “forced leverage.”
He is turning the president’s privilege to cope with the crisis, and the strong relationship between the United States and its allies, into a lever that can be used as he wants.
It has only one purpose: to force the domestic political impasse and international multilateral consensus that he is not satisfied with, and to circumvent all institutional barriers. Ultimately consolidating his personal absolute authority and political basics.
The emergency card.
In the country, the "national emergency" thing has changed, it was the constitution that gave the president special powers to bypass conventional legal procedures in times of crisis, but now in the hands of Trump, it has become a tool for combating political opponents and suppressing local autonomy. "Master Key"。
He used this key not to cope with a real national crisis, but to his personal political goals.
This time, his lever was precisely aimed at Washington Mayor Bowser.
In Trump’s eyes, this mayor is one. “Radical Left”Especially his refusal to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement agencies on immigration issues makes him intolerable.
Of course, his target is not just Washington. New york, Chicago, Los Angeles... these cities ruled by the Democratic Party, because they were labeled as having a high crime rate and many homeless people, have all become the possible targets of this "combination boxing".
This is by no means just verbal threats. As recently as August 11, he had sent more than two thousand National Guard troops to the capital. Afterwards, he also hyped the "immediate" effect of this action on social media.
His actions have triggered a strong rebound. Washington Attorney General Schwab directly sued the federal government in court on September 4, while protesters walked out on the streets on September 6. Trump is taking steps toward turning the threat into reality.
The fire was lit by an emotional spark—the accidental death of his conservative ally, Kirk.
A young man shot Kirk's life. Trump quickly characterized the case, claiming that the gunman was a "good student" and was completely changed by the radical remarks of the left.
This statement, simply, is for him to use the power-made public opinion catalyst. When his deputy Wance participated in the live program of memories of Kork, it was more direct to play, fiercely attacked the left group, and cried out loud for the right.
This is no longer a mere power struggle, but it paves the way for the use of "forced leverage" by exacerbating ideological opposition.
Tokyo is a new game.
In his eyes, a strong alliance is not a partnership of equal cooperation, but an extension of his unilateral agenda.
By pressuring allies to make choices contrary to their own national interests and mainstream international consensus, he transformed bilateral relations into a “compulsory lever” serving his specific diplomatic goals.
At the key node of the United Nations General Assembly, the United States issued a naked order demanding that Japan should not recognize the Palestinian state.
This is no longer an equal alliance negotiation, but a direct link to the stability of Japan-US relations, full of threats.
This directive instantly plunged Japan into diplomatic isolation.Look at the world, more than a hundred and forty countries have recognized the status of the independent state of Palestine.
Last year, European countries such as Norway, Spain, Ireland and Slovenia also joined the list.
Not to mention the United Nations General Assembly just passed the New York Declaration on 12 September with a overwhelming advantage of 142 votes in support of the “two-state plan.”
The Japanese government is now facing enormous domestic and external difficulties, with threats from the U.S. and persuasion from other allies such as France and Britain that they want Japan to recognize Palestine in order to put pressure on Israel to end the blockade of Gaza.
This situation has made Tokyo extremely embarrassing, a little careless, and could be labeled "lack of independent diplomacy."
The Trump administration is behind a consistent pro-Israel stance of the United States and its extreme contempt for multilateral mechanisms.
They even refused to issue visas to Palestinian officials and prevented them from attending the meeting.
Under this logic, allied Japan’s national interests and diplomatic autonomy have been ruthlessly simplified, eventually becoming a “chess” in the service of U.S. Middle East policy.
Uncontrolled gambling.
Whether it’s the bullshit of a “emergency” or the coercion of a far-off ally in Tokyo, the underlying logic of Trump’s operation is completely unified: by actively creating and exacerbating internal and external contradictions, shaping an immense “strong” image.
He wants to circumvent all institutional constraints that he thinks are in the way, so as to consolidate his central position among supporters and deal with his deep "sense of loss of control" of the situation.
His fundamental goal is to "exclude dissidents" and maintain the "unity and unity" of his camp. At home, those so-called "left wings" are the enemy. Internationally, all "pro-Palestinian" forces are also defined by him as targets that need to be strongly suppressed.
This tough gesture originated in fact from his anxiety about the double difficulty of domestic diplomacy.
At home, his tariff policies led to rising prices, leading to widespread criticism and legal challenges.In diplomatic terms, he tried to mediate the Russian-Ukrainian conflict but was not expected and could not influence the decisions of Putin and Zelensky at all.
Even “Iron Belt allies” like Israel dared hit him in the face – just as Hamas discussed a cease-fire deal, Israeli bombs dropped directly on the territory of U.S. ally Qatar, blowing up the venue.
All this made him feel “out of control”. so the use of “forced leverage” was his only way to rebuild authority and regain control.
The two leverages have an astonishing consistency, and that is.” Avoid consensus and system and directly force political will.”。 At home, he challenged the separation of federal and local powers. Internationally, he flouted the Charter of the United Nations and the prevailing multilateral diplomatic norms.
This strategy may succeed quickly for a while, but its long-term destructiveness is enormous.
At home, it has intensified the social division and legal opposition, and internationally, it has constantly alienated those countries that hope to solve problems through multilateral frameworks, making the United States run counter to the "world trend" of seeking cooperation.
Critics have pointed to the fact that the United States is viewing its allies as a “barrier” and the United Nations as a “barrier” to its actions.
whileChina’s attitude is clear.
We advocate that Palestine and Israel, on the basis of UN resolutions, promote the two-state approach to restore the right of the Palestinian people, which is not only a requirement of international law, but also the foundation of peace.
Likewise, we have always emphasized that without internal stability and transparency, it is difficult for a country to truly play a constructive role on the world stage.
conclusion
Trump’s “forced leverage” strategy is by no means a random appearance of a performance-type personality, but a systematic and precisely calculated way of operating power internally and externally.
It seems confused, but in fact it is maintaining its own interests everywhere.
From the turbulent streets of Washington to the repressed diplomatic stage in Tokyo, this lever has long been driven not just by a specific policy, but by the foundations of the American democratic system, the norm of the entire post-war international order.
A thoughtful question arises: When power replaces rules, when coercion replaces negotiation, where will this model of governance ultimately lead the United States?
What serious challenges does this mean for an international community that still expects to resolve disputes through dialogue and cooperation?