The Paradox of Trump’s Diplomacy: Right Aims, Flawed Methods

italiatelegraph

Altaf Moti
Pakistan

Donald Trump’s approach to international relations represented a significant departure from traditional American diplomacy. His method was built on personal instinct, transactional deal-making, and a deep skepticism of long-standing alliances and multilateral agreements. This strategy often placed him at odds with established diplomatic norms. A central critique of his foreign policy is that even when he identified legitimate issues, his confrontational and erratic methods often undermined his objectives and created greater instability.
The Personal and the Transactional
At the core of Trump’s diplomacy was a belief in the power of personal relationships with world leaders. He favored direct, leader-to-leader negotiations over the complex, institutional processes managed by diplomats and foreign policy experts. This was evident in his interactions with figures like North Korea’s Kim Jong Un, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and China’s Xi Jinping.
The summits with Kim Jong Un are a prime example. These meetings were historic and visually dramatic, creating an impression of diplomatic progress. However, the personal rapport between the two leaders did not translate into substantive, verifiable steps toward the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The lack of detailed groundwork and follow-through by diplomatic staff meant that the grand gestures failed to produce lasting results.
Similarly, his “America First” policy treated foreign relations as a series of business transactions. He viewed international agreements and alliances through a cost-benefit lens, often concluding that the United States was getting a “bad deal.” This perspective drove his decisions to impose tariffs on allies and adversaries alike, from China to the European Union and Canada. The goal was to leverage America’s economic power to force concessions. However, this transactional approach often ignored the strategic value of alliances, which are built on shared values and mutual security, not just economic balance sheets.
Identifying Problems, Worsening Outcomes
A recurring pattern in Trump’s foreign policy was the correct identification of an existing problem, followed by a solution that proved counterproductive. His approach often alienated allies whose cooperation was necessary for a successful outcome.
NATO Defense Spending
President Trump was correct in his assertion that many NATO members were not meeting their defense spending commitment of 2% of GDP. This had been a point of frustration for previous U.S. administrations. Raising this issue was valid.
However, his method was deeply problematic for the alliance. He publicly criticized and berated allied leaders, questioned the fundamental principle of mutual defense under Article 5, and repeatedly threatened to withdraw the U.S. from the alliance. Instead of building a consensus to strengthen NATO, his actions sowed division and created doubt about America’s commitment to its security guarantees. This undermined the very solidarity that is NATO’s greatest strength against potential adversaries. He was right about the spending issue but wrong in how he tried to solve it.
China’s Economic Practices
The Trump administration correctly identified significant challenges posed by China’s economic policies. Issues such as intellectual property theft, forced technology transfers, and an imbalanced trade relationship were, and remain, serious concerns for the global economy. This view is widely shared across the political spectrum in the United States.
His chosen tool, however, was a unilateral trade war. He imposed sweeping tariffs on Chinese goods without first building a broad coalition of other affected nations, such as the European Union, Japan, and Australia. A united front could have applied more effective and targeted pressure on Beijing. Instead, the go-it-alone strategy led to a costly tariff battle that disrupted supply chains, hurt American farmers and consumers, and failed to resolve the core structural issues in the U.S.-China economic relationship. The diagnosis of the problem was accurate, but the unilateral treatment was flawed.
The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA)
Another example is the Iran Nuclear Deal, formally known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Trump and other critics argued that the agreement was too narrow. They contended it did not address Iran’s ballistic missile program or its destabilizing activities in the Middle East, and that its “sunset clauses” would eventually allow Iran to resume nuclear activities.
These are legitimate points for debate. Yet, his decision to unilaterally withdraw the United States from the JCPOA in 2018 isolated Washington, not Tehran. The other signatories—the United Kingdom, France, Germany, China, and Russia—remained committed to the deal and criticized the U.S. withdrawal. The subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign of sanctions did cripple Iran’s economy but failed to force its leaders back to the negotiating table for a “better deal.” Instead, Iran accelerated its nuclear enrichment activities, arguably moving closer to a potential nuclear weapon than it was under the agreement. He dismantled an imperfect existing structure without a viable alternative, making a difficult situation more dangerous.
The Legacy of Disruption
The consequence of this diplomatic style was a significant erosion of trust between the United States and its traditional allies. Alliances that had formed the bedrock of international stability for decades were strained by unpredictability and perceived hostility from their most powerful member. Multilateral institutions, from the World Health Organization to the World Trade Organization, were weakened by U.S. skepticism and withdrawal.
This approach created a more volatile and unpredictable international environment. While intended to project strength and secure better outcomes for America, it often resulted in U.S. isolation and a diminished capacity to lead on global challenges. Diplomacy is not merely about confrontation or winning a single negotiation. It is the patient process of building coalitions, fostering trust, and managing complex relationships to advance long-term interests. By prioritizing short-term, transactional wins over sustainable, alliance-based strategy, Trump’s diplomacy demonstrated that even when one’s starting premise has merit, the wrong execution can lead to failure.
italiatelegraph