Ignatius: On world stage, Great Distruptor thrown off kilter

China, North Korea and Iran may have figured out that Trump has little to back up his bluster.

By David Ignatius

The Washington Post

President Trump has styled himself in foreign policy as the Great Disrupter. And for a time, this unpredictable approach served him reasonably well. Leaders from China, North Korea and Iran found themselves off balance, and they sometimes made what looked like concessions.

Trump’s problem is that, after two years, foreign nations seem to have figured him out. Rather than crafting quick deals that Trump could tout as wins, these adversaries have played a waiting game. They appear to sense in Trump an impatience and hunger for the spotlight that undermine his ability to negotiate.

Trump in recent weeks has moved toward confrontations with China, North Korea and Iran. In each case, the White House has maximum goals without a clearly discernible strategy for achieving them. Trump’s statements oscillate between hardline rhetoric and invitations to personal diplomacy. Sometimes he appears to contradict positions that his advisers have taken. Once, this back-and-forth might have produced leverage for Trump; now, it often just yields confusion.

Looking at the various global showdowns, you can see a common theme: of adversaries that appear more willing to take risks in resisting Trump’s demands. Trump’s response is often to double down. This dynamic carries a danger of miscalculation.

In the trade war with China, Trump embraced the perennial U.S. desire for a “level playing field.” But he pursued it with a blunderbuss, through escalating tariffs. Trump seemed convinced that China would eventually make concessions that he could claim as a victory. Such a deal seemed imminent this month, and Trump said on Monday that it was 95 percent done when Chinese leaders balked.

U.S. experts offer two theories about why China resisted a settlement. One is that Trump’s negotiators wouldn’t promise to remove promptly all tariffs imposed on $250 billion in Chinese products, and the Chinese didn’t trust an erratic American president to eliminate them eventually. Another theory is that Trump’s bravado had convinced the Chinese that he was actually in a weak position and could be pushed.

Either way, Trump’s negotiating style seemed to be part of the problem. Trump and President Xi Jinping will meet at next month’s G20 summit perhaps for a reset.

The nuclear negotiations with North Korea have been even more puzzling. Trump went for a showy but vague denuclearization statement in his first summit with Chairman Kim Jong Un in Singapore. His State Department advisers then worked to prepare a roadmap for step-by-step negotiations to achieve that goal; but Trump, impatient with slow progress, pushed for another showy maximal agreement at the Hanoi summit in February.

When that summit collapsed, Trump tried flattering Kim and publicly endorsed the incremental approach. Kim, perhaps sensing uncertainty in Trump’s changing positions, turned up the pressure by resuming missile tests this month. The U.S. matched Pyongyang’s show of strength by seizing a North Korean ship allegedly carrying forbidden cargo.

The bottom line is that with North Korea, as with China, Trump’s disruptive style has had diminishing returns.

Which brings us to the most dangerous of the confrontations, the test of strength with Iran. As Trump tightened the vise of sanctions on the Iranian economy, Tehran seems to have opted for counter-disruption. Israel and other Middle East allies have warned of Iranian preparations for sabotage or military action; the U.S. responded with an aircraft carrier group and B-52 bombers.

When several tankers were damaged off the United Arab Emirates this week, perhaps by an Iranian mine, The New York Times reported that the administration had updated plans to send as many as 120,000 U.S. troops to the region if necessary. But as always with Trump, there have been mixed signals: The White House is exploring whether to refer the tanker incident to the United Nations, and Trump has said he’s waiting for a call from Iranian leaders.

Trump’s approach as he strides toward the brink in negotiations often seems that of a gambler. He’s operating on instinct and luck, rather than a careful strategy. He’s not counting cards, or precisely calculating the odds. He’s winging it, hoping he can bluff the other players. He plays hunches; he blusters his adversaries and then flatters them; he focuses on the optics of looking strong, as opposed to the fundamentals.

The philosopher Isaiah Berlin famously divided people into hedgehogs, who know one big thing, and foxes, who know many little things. Trump may snort like a hedgehog, but his shifting deal-making approach may be closer to a fox — albeit an uncertain one — and the other animals in the forest seem to have figured that out.

Follow David Ignatius on Twitter @IgnatiusPost.

Talk to us

More in Opinion

Editorial cartoons for Tuesday, June 2

A sketchy look at the day in the news.… Continue reading

Editorial: Work ahead even if county can move to Phase 2

While easing restrictions would be welcome, there’s much to be done to get the economy going again.

Commentary: Jackson’s namesake sub marks two milestones

On what would have been the late senator’s 108th birthday, the submarine makes its 100th patrol.

Harrop: Central Park confrontation provides stark contrast

Faced with a threat, Christian Cooper put self-control on display in reaction to Amy Cooper’s anger.

Commentary: Women, black leaders filled void left by Trump

Where Trump has only added fuel to the fires, others have stepped up to calm Americans and call for action.

Commentary: Air travel could resume sooner than many thought

A surge in travel over the Memorial Day weekend is just one sign of the public’s interest in flying again.

Wear masks for the sake of others

About the fuss over masks: People should wear them in enclosed or… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Monday, June 1

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial: State officials’ pay raises poorly timed

Set by a citizen panel a year ago, the raises begin just as the state needs to make deep budget cuts.

Most Read