Politico published a report by Nahal Toosi stating that US President Donald Trump is facing a more challenging world.
This demonstrates the flawed approach Trump and his team take to treating the world as a collection of submissive figures. For months, Trump has pressured other nations on everything from trade to governance. Only in the last few days have a handful of world powers challenged him, showing him the limits of what he can do.
Iran’s leaders have abandoned peace talks with the United States, preferring to continue the war, while voters in Hungary ousted one of Trump’s closest European allies, Prime Minister Viktor Orbán . Then there is Pope Leo, who supposedly relies on a higher power, and who said he “doesn’t fear” Trump after the president mocked him. Trump and his aides seem to be acting as if most of the world’s population are merely “non-player characters” in a video game. They believe, with few exceptions, that America can use threats, economic power, and military action to subjugate other capitals to its will.
Voters in Hungary ousted one of Trump's closest European allies, Prime Minister Viktor Orban.
However, Tosi says that foreign policy has its basic laws, just like Newton's laws of physics, one of which is that for every action there is a reaction, which may not be equal in magnitude or opposite in direction, and may not be what the Trump team wants.
However, the US administration has shown no signs of accepting or adapting to the fact that there are many international powers willing to oppose the American superpower.
The magazine quoted Richard Haass, former president of the Council on Foreign Relations, as saying: “If there were a recognition that intimidation was no longer a successful tactic, we would have seen a shift away from this approach,” but there are no real indications that Trump is doing so.
The journalist says she is hearing, more than ever, concerns from foreign officials that crucial information about geopolitical dynamics is not reaching the president, simply because his aides are not telling him the hard truths. A New York Times report about his decision to go to war with Iran has only heightened these concerns.
A senior European diplomat was quoted as expressing his opinion angrily, saying: “He is surrounded by people who always agree with him.”
The Trump administration's reckless approach was on full display in Vice President J.D. Vance's remarks after he held 21 hours of peace talks with Iranian officials over the weekend. Vance said Iran "chose not to accept our terms."
Vance repeated this statement twice, albeit in a different form, giving the impression that the United States dictates its terms and does not negotiate, although Vance added that the United States is “very lenient.”
This statement was not well received by supporters of the Iranian regime, while many in other countries saw the whole crisis as a missed opportunity to ease tensions.
The journalist quoted a Western diplomat based in the Middle East as saying: “If you want something from someone, you have to give them something, unless they surrender completely as happened in World War II. It can’t just be a threat of defeat.”
Tusi noted that the Trump administration, as usual, rejected her suggestion that a hardline approach was counterproductive. State Department spokesman Tommy Pigott responded, “For decades, previous administrations stood idly by while the American people were taken advantage of through trade imbalances, unfair defense spending, unfair burden-sharing, mass illegal and uncontrolled immigration, anti-American bias in international organizations, and the list goes on. President Trump said: This will not continue.”
There is no evidence yet that Trump or his aides are aware of the chain reactions they trigger when issuing orders, that they have learned from past negative reactions, or that they care.
Tusi notes that there is no evidence yet that Trump or his aides are aware of the chain reaction they trigger when issuing orders, that they have learned from past negative reactions, or that they even care. Certainly, Trump may back down here and there on some issues (as in the “Tacco” phenomenon, where Trump initially backs down), but he quickly reverts to his pressure tactics later on the same issue.
In this context, she points to Trump's insistence on annexing Greenland from Denmark, a move that was a red line for most European countries, whose leaders had grown considerably closer to Trump during his first year in office. In January, as Trump escalated his demands regarding Greenland, European leaders made their firm rejection clear and then used NATO to grant the United States greater military authority on the island.
Trump has backed down, but the damage has been done. His maneuvering over Greenland and his persistent threats to withdraw from NATO have increased the need for European countries to focus their efforts on reducing their dependence on American security and military support. As their reliance on the United States diminishes, the likelihood of them rebelling against Trump increases. Instead of confronting this danger, Trump has indicated in recent days that his story with Greenland is far from over. On April 8, furious with the Europeans for refusing to cooperate with him on Iran, he tweeted on TruthSocial: “Remember Greenland, that big, badly managed iceberg!”
Tusi adds that sometimes no one knows, or can speculate, whether Trump is aware of the indirect effects of his threatening actions.
For example, the tariffs imposed by Trump are pushing other countries to seek new trading partners outside the United States, thus reducing their economic dependence on it. And just as countries are reducing their military dependence, those less economically dependent on America are less likely to heed its advice in the future.
Perhaps the problem with Trump and his team, as many in foreign policy circles feel, stems from the fact that they are treating the world as if it were a real estate deal, as the president did in New York.
Hence, treating the Russian war in Ukraine or the Palestinian demands in Gaza as merely a conflict over land ignores the fact that identity, politics, and the desire to survive as a people are what fuel many conflicts.
Trump has consistently paid more attention to major global powers like Beijing and Moscow compared to those he considers weaker.
A former Latin American official, who asked not to be identified, was quoted as saying, “Trump and his team often fail to grasp that people tend to fight for what gives their lives meaning that transcends a purely rational or material analysis of profit and loss.” Sometimes, Trump changes his stance after witnessing the negative impact of his aggressive policies.
When China stood up to him over trade, responding by imposing hefty retaliatory tariffs and restricting exports of rare earth minerals, he called for a de facto truce.
However, Trump has always paid more attention to major global powers such as Beijing and Moscow than to those he considers weaker. In addition, it is difficult to ignore negative reactions from China when they affect stock markets.
A White House official defended Trump’s trade moves, pointing out that the European Union, Japan, India, South Korea and the United Kingdom have lowered trade barriers to U.S. exports and are still paying tariffs, and this is “proof that the president has succeeded in leveraging U.S. economic dominance with our trading partners.”
Former director of the Council on Foreign Relations, Haas, believes that Trump and his policies may contribute to pushing the United States towards a world in which it is no longer the center of gravity, or a “post-American world,” which is certainly what China wants.
This world may be turbulent and volatile, forcing the United States to constantly seek assistance, rather than knowing that it has permanent friends it can rely on, who trust it, and who instinctively support it.
Dan Shapiro, who dealt with Middle East affairs as an official in the Biden administration, was quoted as saying: “Look, the United States is powerful and we have great influence, but our influence is not absolute,” and “Even the best countries need allies, friends, and partners.”
