He has also been unafraid to confront some cold harsh realities, such as the instability of the Middle East since the ousters of Saddam Hussein, Moammar Gadhafi and Hosni Mubarak (the world would be “100%” better off if Saddam and Gaddafi were still in power, Trump said on CNN) and the consequences of intervention (“Everybody that’s touched the Middle East, they’ve gotten bogged down,” he said on NBC).

Trump’s regret that the U.S. never took any of Iraq’s oil sounds colonial and antiquated. But considering the world’s sole superpower gained nothing from the $2 trillion misadventure, juxtaposed with the fact that every great empire throughout history had something to show for blood and effort, Trump’s pathology of thought becomes highly rational. Such views are considered anachronistic, even abhorrent — but nevertheless do not make the points themselves factually incorrect.

The thought of Trump meeting with world leaders like Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin or Gulf Arab sheikhs and speaking with them the way he speaks on the campaign trail bothers many, including foreign officials who have already expressed dismay. Diplomacy, after all, relies heavily on pleasantries, negotiation, compromise and reassurance — even subtle and credible threats. But a President Trump would likely not always govern in a way that is consistent with the language used by candidate Trump. Real foreign policy is not created solely through speeches, tweets or campaign promises. The U.S. government has thousands of experts and a multilayered, complex interagency process — something Trump, if elected, would quickly learn.