The use of the “Three Chains” in diplomacy has existed for quite some time—occasionally even extended beyond three chains. However, the concept gained widespread recognition and became highly visible during the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

Reagan came into politics from a different profession, stepping directly into the role of president. Among American presidents who were game-changers despite coming from outside traditional political careers, Ronald Reagan stands out as one of the most influential. Although it was during President Bush’s tenure that the Soviet Union collapsed and the world order shifted—and though the United States remains the sole superpower today—much of the credit for bringing America to this dominant position is attributed to Reagan.

Reagan’s Domestic Strategy: Confronting Internal Power Centers

Within the country, Reagan had to confront numerous institutions and powerful entities. One of his key tools in these battles was the strategy of the Three Chains. This approach involved three core steps:

1. Cutting all forms of supply to the targeted institution;
2. Preventing the sugarcoating or concealment of harmful activities;
3. Empowering opposing forces to counter the threat effectively.

For example, we can currently observe Donald Trump’s close ally, Elon Musk, adopting a version of this strategy. As he faces judicial obstacles due to the shutdown of USAID operations, he appears to be using the Three Chain approach to respond.

Global Application: The Three Chains in International Diplomacy

Internationally, this strategy is frequently employed in diplomatic confrontations. If a country is deemed harmful to another, the Three Chains are deployed to isolate, encircle, or defeat that nation. Economic and industrial engagements with the target country are significantly reduced. Simultaneously, diplomatic efforts are launched to persuade other countries to reduce or cut their own economic ties with the targeted state.

Since World War II, institutions like the World Bank and the IMF have gradually become vital economic lifelines for many nations. Therefore, when the Three Chain strategy is applied, diplomatic channels work to block the target country’s access to these institutions. A parallel effort is made to align all economically connected countries, ensuring they reduce engagement with the target as well.

And if any nation shows signs of supporting the targeted country, attempts are made to chain that nation too—by creating economic or political disruptions that force it to focus inward and abandon external support.

Recognizing the First and Second Chains

When a new or unconventional government comes to power, signs of the first chain become visible if foreign economic partners begin to scale back, pause, or cancel new projects. If the country is forced to sell its products at lower prices compared to similar products from other countries, it becomes evident that it is trapped within Reagan’s Three Chain framework.

Alongside economic restrictions, reductions or complete cessation of cooperative services and assistance are often observed. A country that once benefited from tourism, education, medical services, labor exchange, technology transfer, utility supply—or even religious travel and practices—from its close allies or neighbors starts to see these opportunities diminish. In extreme cases, the decline is abrupt and abnormal.

Such developments indicate the country is now caught in the second chain of the Three Chains strategy.

The Third Chain: Controlling the Narrative

Then comes the third chain. This step ensures the targeted country cannot sugarcoat its actions or present itself as innocent on the global stage. All avenues through which it may attempt to polish its image are blocked. Instead, the country’s true nature is exposed and broadcast internationally.

What Makes a Country “Harmful”?

Today, how is a state identified as harmful or dangerous?

A country may be labeled as harmful if it:

• Is ruled by an unrestrained dictatorship or authoritarian regime that poses risks to others;
• Serves as a key corridor for international drug trafficking;
• Facilitates illegal arms smuggling;
• Allows its territory to be used for launching harm against other nations.

Currently, the most dangerous countries are those that serve as hubs for terrorism—where militants roam freely and, both directly and indirectly, influence or control the state.

The Strategic Use of Chains Against Militant States

When a country reaches this stage, it becomes the target of a particularly strong chain that cannot be broken. Nor can it use PR campaigns to sugarcoat its image. This is crucial because today’s militants are cunning. They build their leadership under the cover of social workers, women, rights activists, and media figures. These roles are used to conceal the reality of terrorism and its breeding grounds.

To prevent this, the international community uses hard chains to block these strategies. Militants typically start by attacking intellectuals who oppose them. They treat religious minorities as enemies and attack them next. And they consistently view women’s progress as one of their greatest threats—because progressive women stand in the way of raising future militant generations.

Thus, they target progressive women and psychologically imprison others to exert control.

A Warning to the World: No One Is Safe

Countries seeking to apply the Three Chain strategy against militant states bring these realities to light to alert others who may be affected. Because terrorism knows no borders—no one, not even thousands of miles away, is safe from its reach.

This makes terrorism one of the gravest global security threats today. From mid-tier economies to global superpowers, nations are increasingly alert and united in their response.

To counter and destroy terrorism, they are taking all necessary actions globally. And when a top security official from a major power publicly labels a country as a militant-breeding ground, it’s a clear indication that the country is now deeply trapped in Reagan’s Three Chain strategy.

A Nation’s Remaining Options

At that point, the targeted country usually has only three options:

1. In some countries, even when militants have won elections, the military has intervened to save the nation from militant rule.
2. In others, it was the progressive population that rose up and resisted terrorism successfully.

If neither of these options is viable, the only remaining choice for such a country is to wait—often helplessly—for the next move from the global superpowers.

Author: State award-winning journalist, Editor of Sarakhon and The Present World.