Trump’s deadline diplomacy yields no concrete results

His boastful brand of foreign policy has yielded more breakdowns than breakthroughs.

For decades, long before he assumed the presidency for the first time in 2016, Donald Trump had proclaimed himself to be an astute negotiator and dealmaker. As early as 1987, before he had expressed any political ambitions, he authored a book, The Art of the Deal, with the assistance of journalist Tony Schwartz. It was part biography and part business advice. Regardless of the actual soundness of his business acumen as presented in the book, it captured the public imagination and significantly enhanced his name recognition.

During his second presidential campaign, among other assertions, he claimed he would end the Russia-Ukraine war within a day of assuming office. That, of course, has not materialised, and the bloody conflict continues to exact a heavy toll in lives and resources. Likewise, despite his reputed deal-making prowess, he has failed to end the horrific war in Gaza. In fact, he floated the bizarre notion of transforming the Gaza Strip into a luxury Mediterranean resort once the conflict ends and the population is relocated elsewhere. The conflict, which has inflicted immense suffering on the Palestinian population even as Hamas continues to hold a few Israelis hostage, shows no signs of abating. Even if it does end, it is likely to be the result of an outright Israeli military victory, not because of a Trump-brokered resolution.

More recently, in the wake of the vicious terrorist attack in Pahalgam and the ensuing military tensions between India and Pakistan, Trump claimed to have brought the confrontation to an end. He asserted that he had threatened both nations with severe trade sanctions, which allegedly prompted a swift ceasefire. Islamabad has remained conspicuously silent on Trump’s supposed intervention. New Delhi, however, categorically denied that Trump played any role in ending the brief but intense conflagration. Prime Minister Modi has repeatedly affirmed that India will not accept third-party mediation in matters concerning Pakistan - a position consistent with India’s longstanding policy of resolving such disputes bilaterally. Indeed, even a far weaker India had resisted Anglo-American efforts, such as the Harriman-Sandys Mission of the early 1960s, to settle the Kashmir issue. A materially stronger and more nationalist India today is even less likely to give in to Trump’s rhetorical grandstanding.

Trump has now entered the fray between Israel and Iran. Israel launched a series of attacks on Iran even as Trump’s emissary, Steven Witkoff, was reportedly engaged in negotiations with Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi in Oman. These talks have since been suspended as hostilities between Iran and Israel have escalated. After initially issuing threats to Iran, Trump stated he was inclined to give the country two weeks “to come to their senses” before considering US military action in support of Israel. In the meantime, both sides have intensified their attacks, and Trump has done little to intervene or de-escalate the situation.

It is worth noting that Trump appears fixated on “two-week deadlines.” From claims of ending the Ukraine war to concluding tax negotiations, he has repeatedly invoked this arbitrary timeframe. Yet none of these goals were met within a fortnight. It remains uncertain whether he will act at the end of this self-imposed deadline or whether he will align militarily with Israel. It is, of course, highly unlikely that Tehran - now increasingly cornered - will yield to Trump’s vague demands within such a limited timespan.

Should the United States undertake military action alongside Israel, it may well contribute to a battlefield victory, especially given that Israel’s offensive has already weakened Iran’s military capacity. However, any such outcome would result from a strategy of compellence - that is, forcing an adversary to undo previous actions - rather than from any form of negotiated diplomatic settlement.

Far from displaying any real skill in negotiation, Trump - both during his first term and now in his return to office - has shown himself to be more proficient at dismantling agreements, bilateral and multilateral alike, than at forging new ones. His methods rely on threats and bluster, ultimately culminating either in withdrawal or in suboptimal accords. Notably, during his first term, he revoked the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), painstakingly negotiated during the Obama administration. Had it remained intact, the agreement might have curtailed Iran’s nuclear ambitions. In its place, Trump pursued a “maximum pressure” policy that achieved little and presented no viable alternative. As a result, Iran resumed its uranium enrichment programme, at least partly fuelling the current conflict with Israel.

Successful negotiation - whether in business or diplomacy - demands patience, preparation, and, most importantly, relevant expertise. Trump appears to lack both the temperament and the inclination to develop or apply such skills. Consequently, for all his posturing and theatrics, he has yet to produce a single meaningful agreement.

(The writer is a Senior Fellow and directs the Huntington Programme on Strengthening US-India Relations at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.)