The Madness of the Madman Theory

Have you ever heard of the “Madman Theory” in international politics? The idea is this: if a leader appears sufficiently unpredictable, almost out of control, his opponents will be careful not to provoke him—out of fear that he might do something reckless. In the 1960s, Richard Nixon made this a declared strategy: he let it leak to the Soviets and the North Vietnamese that he was ready to do anything, even to press the nuclear button. But here comes the paradox: not only did the Madman Theory not work for Nixon, but it risks being even more dangerous today. There is a widespread belief that pretending to be irrational is a clever way to secure concessions. In reality, it’s like playing poker while showing your cards: once everyone realizes that your unpredictability is an act, the bluff loses its power—and the risk of a real escalation increases. Nixon thought he could dominate the scene by instilling fear, but his counterparts simply didn't believe him. It is said that in 1969, he ordered nuclear bombers to remain in the air for weeks, awaiting a signal. Yet both Moscow and Hanoi remained unmoved. No one budged. The same pattern is repeated today with Donald Trump, who is often described as the latest proponent of the Madman Theory. But the world has changed: in the age of social media, a reputation for being out of control backfires. A European diplomat said, “If everything is a spectacle, no one takes threats seriously anymore.” And there is a sobering fact: None of the great diplomatic successes of recent times have come from unpredictable leaders, but rather from figures considered stable and reliable. There is an even more subtle aspect: the Madman Theory only works if the madness is credible, but the bluff only needs to be called once for everything to collapse. Ultimately, true strength in diplomacy lies not in appearing dangerous, but in building trust and predictability. The idea that “going crazy” on command is a winning strategy belongs to the past rather than to the future. If this perspective has made you look at international politics in a different light, you can indicate this on Lara Notes with I'm In: that way, this idea becomes part of your worldview. And if you happen to discuss it over dinner or a cup of coffee, you can tag that conversation with Shared Offline—because certain topics also need to be experienced beyond the screen. This insight comes from the Financial Times; you have saved more than a minute compared to the original article.