'A new resistance movement'

This is apropos aBusiness Recorder op-ed "A new resistance movement" carried by the newspaper yesterday. The writer, Rashed Rahman, has articulated a fascinating argument on how US President Donald Trump has shaken up the US and the world. He has argued, among other things, that "the US's role in this order has been one of a powerful leader, first of the west during the Cold War, later leader of the world in a fluid and complex post-Cold War order. The relative decline of the US's pre-eminent role in world affairs that is underway because of economic and other factors, even as it remains a military colossus (but increasingly with feet of clay), will accelerate under Trump's isolationist stances. While the tectonic shift underway in the global power balance to Asia will be strengthened, the risk of conflict or war looms over Trump's negativity regarding the Iranian nuclear agreement and China's economic success and claims in the East and south China Seas. As it is, nuclear restraint experts are appalled by Trump's ideas on South Korea and Japan acquiring nuclear weapons for their defence. It is an idea that flies in the face of decades of constructing the architecture (albeit not entirely satisfactory) of a global nuclear restraint regime.
Trump has ordered his military to come up within 30 days with a strategy to defeat IS. This 'gung-ho' approach is likely to land the US, and the world, in an even worse mess than the one bequeathed by Trump's predecessor/s. World leaders are increasingly adding their vocal criticism of Trump's latest foolishness to their so far more muted concerns about alliances, multilateralism and a stable world order. The Chinese curse of living in 'interesting times' is truly upon us with the advent of Don Quixote Trump".
Although the writer's is a scholarly perspective because of his deep understanding of the present global situation, he unnecessarily appears overly pessimistic about the international outcomes in coming weeks and months. Firstly, Trump's stance in relation to Nato's presence in Europe makes a greater sense because the west did not really need this post-World War II military alliance after the break-up of the Soviet Union. The ongoing Russia-Nato stand-off poses grave threats to the world peace. Although Trump's stance in relation to Nato is largely characterised by economics, he sees little or no utility of maintaining this military alliance when he is in a position to vastly improve relationship of his country with the successor state to the Soviet Union.
Secondly, global terrorism is always required to be dealt with an iron hand. Trump's resolve in this regard provides the world, including the West, with a new hope.
Thirdly, one must not lose sight of the fact that the Obama administration had conveyed to the President-elect Donald Trump team that it considered North Korea to be the top national security priority for the incoming administration. Trump's argument that the US allies Japan and South Korea should look into the possibility of acquiring nuclear weapons for their defence makes greater sense because the world has failed to force North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programme so far; nor has it been able to contain Pyongyang.