The 100-year Great Game refers to the long-term geopolitical strategy where global powers compete for influence, resources, and territory, specifically in Central and South Asia. This competition relies on a logic of permanent entanglement and the maintenance of buffer states.
Whether his policy is a rejection of this logic is a matter of intense debate. One side argues that his transactional approach and skepticism of permanent alliances dismantle the traditional Great Game. The other side argues that he simply updates the game for a new era of resource competition and regional dominance.
Bolton says Trump has no strategy. Chatham House says regime change can't be done from the air.
Then Iran called Washington — not London — and Trump picked up.
The regime changers are outside the room and can't even find the door. pic.twitter.com/nkLh2OTMaP
— Promethean Action (@PrometheanActn) March 2, 2026
The Case for Rejection
The argument that he rejects the Great Game centers on his “America First” logic, which prioritizes immediate domestic gains over long-term geopolitical positioning.
Transactionalism over Alliances: Traditional Great Game strategy requires stable, multi-decade alliances to contain rivals. He often treats these as bad business deals, demanding payment or threatening withdrawal from organizations like NATO.
Sphere of Influence Shift: His administration signals a move toward a “Donroe Doctrine,” a modern expansion of the Monroe Doctrine. This strategy prioritizes the Western Hemisphere and domestic borders over the historical “rimland” strategy that sought to contain Russia and China in Eurasia.
Soft Power Dismantling: By shuttering organizations like USAID and reducing foreign aid, he discards the “soft power” tools that were essential for the 20th-century version of the Great Game.
The Case for a New Version
The opposing view is that he does not reject the Great Game but instead plays a more aggressive and explicit version of it.
Critical Minerals Race: Recent summits with Central Asian leaders show a focus on critical minerals. He views the region not as a buffer state but as a site for “commercial opportunities” to reduce reliance on China. This is a classic Great Game move: securing resources before a rival does.
Hard Power Interventions: Actions in the Middle East, including military strikes on Iranian facilities and the buildup of a massive “armada” in the region, suggest he is still deeply enmeshed in the old game of regional containment and regime change.
Great-Power Competition: While he rejects the “liberal international order,” he embraces “illiberal hegemony.” He seeks to use tariffs and military threats to force rivals to capitulate, which is an intensification of great-power rivalry rather than a rejection of it.
That he seeks to “raze” industries and “annihilate” foreign navies suggests a move away from the subtle diplomacy of the 19th-century Great Game toward a more direct and volatile form of global competition.
