President Donald Trump’s abrupt decision to weaken military exercises with South Korea may have had little to do with North Korea—and everything to do with his mounting humiliation over the war in Iran.
That is the explosive argument from foreign-policy expert Tom Nichols, who believes Trump is punishing a dependable American ally because Seoul refused to join a conflict that has delivered the president “one embarrassment after another.”
Trump announced Sunday that he had instructed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to “substantially reduce” U.S. participation in annual exercises with South Korea.
The drills have been a foundation of security on the Korean Peninsula for decades, preparing American and South Korean forces to respond together if nuclear-armed North Korea launches an attack.
Trump, however, described the exercises as expensive, “inappropriate and hostile” toward Kim Jong Un’s regime—a government he called “unthreatening and respectful.”
In the same Truth Social post, Trump complained that South Korea had refused his request to participate in the “Denuclearization of the Islamic Republic of Iran.”
To Nichols, that seemingly unrelated admission exposed the real motive.
Writing in The Atlantic, he argued that the United States is losing the Iran conflict and that Trump is lashing out at South Korea because its refusal to participate made that defeat even more personally humiliating.
“America and the rest of the world are now witnessing a public exhibition of narcissistic rage,” Nichols wrote.
“Trump embarked on a war for personal glory, and what he got instead was ongoing humiliation. He clearly finds it all unbearable.”
That is Nichols’ political and psychological interpretation, not a clinical diagnosis or established fact about Trump’s private state of mind.
But his argument connects several developments that have placed the president under extraordinary pressure.
The Strait of Hormuz remains largely closed, reducing the flow of oil and contributing to higher fuel prices. A 60-day peace deadline expired without a broader agreement, while U.S. naval forces have struggled to restore normal shipping.
The USS Abraham Lincoln has remained deployed for nine grueling months. Families have described deteriorating conditions for sailors, and reports have raised concerns about severe mental distress aboard the aircraft carrier.
Trump’s secretive departure from Turkey—reportedly involving an escape from Air Force One inside a catering truck amid an Iranian assassination threat—provided another image that critics portray as humiliating.
Nichols believes Trump is attempting to compensate for those failures by attacking a country unable or unlikely to retaliate.
“Trump both fears and respects the autocrats who rule Russia, China, and North Korea, and so he dares not cross them,” Nichols wrote.
“Instead, he is seeking to assuage the psychic injury of his loss in Iran—including the American public learning of the shameful conditions to which he has subjected U.S. forces—by kicking America’s allies, the nations he can punish without fear that they will kick him back.”
South Korea is particularly vulnerable to sudden shifts in Washington.
The country faces a heavily armed North Korean military across one of the most fortified borders in the world. Joint exercises do more than signal political unity; they test command systems, logistics, communications and battlefield coordination.
Reducing those drills could weaken readiness and create uncertainty about whether Washington will uphold its defense commitments during an emergency.
The decision also appears to reward Pyongyang.
North Korea condemned the exercises as a rehearsal for war on Friday. By Sunday, Trump had ordered them reduced while praising Kim’s government as respectful.
No corresponding concession from North Korea was announced.
Kim has not abandoned his nuclear arsenal. His military continues testing missiles, and a senior American commander warned that North Korea possesses ICBMs capable of delivering nuclear payloads anywhere in North America.
Pyongyang has also dispatched missiles and thousands of troops to assist Russia’s war against Ukraine.
For Nichols, the greatest danger lies in the lesson America’s adversaries may draw from Trump’s response.
“The Chinese and the Russians and the North Koreans are certain to draw the appropriate lessons from this deranged policy,” he wrote.
“They have been shown, yet again, that when Trump fails, he hurts those he feels safe hurting.”
That perception could shape decisions in several potential flashpoints.
China may question whether Trump would defend Taiwan. Russia may calculate that the United States will fracture NATO rather than confront further aggression. North Korea may conclude that pressure and threats can persuade Trump to reduce American military preparedness without giving up anything in return.
Trump’s supporters would offer a different interpretation.
They could argue that South Korea should contribute more to its defense and that reducing provocative exercises may lower tensions. They might also say that the president is pressuring allies to share the military burden instead of depending indefinitely on American forces.
Nichols sees no strategic bargain—only presidential grievance transformed into foreign policy.
If he is correct, Trump did not reduce the drills because North Korea became less dangerous.
He reduced them because South Korea embarrassed him by refusing to join another war.
And from Moscow to Beijing to Pyongyang, America’s enemies may now believe they have discovered the president’s most dangerous weakness: When he feels humiliated, he does not necessarily strike the adversary responsible.
He punishes the ally least likely to fight back.
