Foreign policy has become a contest in reckless escalation, with leaders creating the very conflicts and dangers they claim to be preventing

“Fool around and find out” is the polite rendering of the popular FAFO acronym. It’s usually associated with people making foolish choices and suffering horrible consequences. It seems an apt label for the foreign policies of many states these days. Reckless choices everywhere are resulting in unnecessary and dangerous escalations of conflict and self-harm.

U.S. President Donald Trump is, of course, the most famous disruptor. His intentionally bombastic negotiating strategy has raised the ire of allies and foes alike. Tariffs, sanctions and hard-nosed trade negotiations are its main economic manifestations. But U.S. security strategy has deadlier consequences.

The U.S. war with Iran is the latest example. Reportedly begun at the prodding of the Israeli government, it has ended now in U.S. capitulation, or at least a stalemated pause. Trump has admitted that the U.S. is simply running too low on weapons and oil reserves, and that the Iranians, anyway, have a right to self-defence. Quite a contrast to the bellicose initial rhetoric, but at least he has admitted the self-harm.

In goading Trump into war, the Israeli government has also chosen to play with fire. Not content with becoming an international pariah for its conduct in Gaza, as well as its perennial rejection of a two-state solution, it has now managed to alienate Trump and other previously stalwart U.S. supporters. The sole nuclear-armed state in the region, it relentlessly pursues its calamitous ethno-supremacist Greater Israel project.

For their part, Iranian leaders have been pursuing their own reckless foreign policy from as far back as the 1979 revolution. “Death to Satan” rhetoric isn’t the best way to win friends in international diplomacy. Abusing human rights at home and funding proxies to attack Israel from Lebanon and Gaza have likewise been a recipe for endless killing and instability.

Trump didn’t invent the U.S. version of FAFO foreign policy. His predecessor, U.S. President Joe Biden, escalated hostilities between Ukraine and Russia. This followed a series of adventurist foreign policy choices by previous presidents who were intent on expanding NATO in Eastern Europe. Russian President Vladimir Putin took the bait and made the bad decision to invade his neighbour. U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson then convinced Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to reject a draft peace deal and continue the fight with Russia. Millions of soldiers and civilians have been needlessly killed or become refugees as a result.

Judging from the recent G7 discussions in France, European leaders seem intent on escalating the conflict further, despite having already cut off their own vital energy supplies from Russia. Following recent exchanges of attacks on Kyiv and Moscow, both sides seem ready to climb further up the ladder. It is difficult to discern how either side imagines that further escalation will actually serve their interests. Some are talking openly about the use of nuclear weapons.

Which brings us to another potential FAFO foreign policy choice. He could just leave matters alone, but Chinese President Xi Jinping has set 2027 as the year by which China’s armed forces should be ready to take control of Taiwan. China is already provoking its neighbours with an expansive claim to nearly the entire South China Sea. Provocative clashes with Philippine vessels have become dangerously routine.

But Taiwan is a special case. It supplies over 90 per cent of the world’s most advanced semiconductors. Casting strategic ambiguity aside, Biden let it slip that the U.S. would defend Taiwan. Japan has already declared its strategic interests, as well. Judging from the recent Persian Gulf blockade, the U.S. would likely move to block energy and other critical supplies to China in the event of an attack on Taiwan. India, Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia and others would be drawn in. Russia would support China. North Korea would be an unpredictable wildcard. All this if China chooses to “fool around and find out.”

As for Canada, the Carney government has at least put the unserious feminist foreign policy rhetoric behind it. Yet, the giddy nationalism of the “elbows up” approach to U.S. relations, while an easy vote winner, holds the potential for severe damage to Canada’s vital national interests. Taking an openly mocking and hostile position against our main trading partner and security guarantor, which, for better and worse, is a superpower struggling to save itself from visible decline, is ill-advised, to say the least. Equally, the ongoing moves to become more entangled in European affairs and to elevate relations with China to a “strategic partnership” in a new world order are inviting trouble. Trade diversification is good, but we don’t need to antagonize our giant neighbour.

Fortunately, the Canadian government appears to be coming around to reality in the face of uncertainty surrounding current bilateral trade negotiations. Having temporarily forgotten the disastrous consequences of border closures following 9/11, Canadian political leaders appear now to have rediscovered the more rational notion of Fortress North America.

FAFO foreign policy is best summed up as the casting aside of vital national interests in favour of capricious choices that both escalate conflict and maximize self-harm. It is the opposite of diplomacy. And it is spreading like a virus. Unless it stops, the endless cycle of bad choices will continue to yield catastrophic consequences for global peace and stability.

Randolph Mank is a former three-time Canadian ambassador and business executive with BlackBerry and SICPA. He currently heads MankGlobal Inc. consulting, serves on boards, and is a fellow of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute, the Triple Helix Partnership for Defence Innovation, and the Balsillie School of International Affairs.