By Matt Underwood Trump’s repeated claims that Iran is composed of “tough, too tough” negotiators are perplexing, especially considering his self-proclaimed mastery of the art of the deal. If he’s truly the unparalleled negotiator he claims to be, why does every international negotiation seem to devolve into complaints about the other party’s intransigence? It’s a pattern that’s become increasingly noticeable: every failed agreement is attributed to the other side being unreasonable, inflexible, or lacking awareness of their own weak position.
This constant refrain of “they were too tough” undermines his own credibility. It suggests a fundamental inability to navigate complex geopolitical situations, leaving one to question whether his negotiating prowess is as formidable as he portrays. Perhaps, instead of blaming others, he should consider that sometimes, irreconcilable differences exist between negotiating parties. In such cases, forcing a compromise is unrealistic and can be counterproductive. A failed deal doesn’t necessarily mean the other party is at fault; it may simply reflect an unbridgeable gap in expectations.
The situation with Iran perfectly illustrates this point. The idea of “half-killing” someone, a concept that some might apply to nuclear negotiations, is absurd and highlights the limitations of a purely transactional approach to resolving major geopolitical issues. There are certain lines that even skilled negotiation cannot cross, and negotiating with an opponent who poses an existential threat requires a level of strategic awareness that seems to be absent. It’s also worth pondering how Iran can be expected to trust any new agreement after seeing a previous deal unilaterally dismantled, eroding any potential foundation of trust. This creates a cycle of mistrust, where each party is wary of being deceived or exploited.
It’s hard not to notice the irony in Trump’s current stance on Iran. He previously denounced a prior agreement as the “worst deal in history,” yet seems unwilling to secure even a similar arrangement. This inconsistency reveals a deeper problem—a lack of cohesive strategy and an unwillingness to compromise or even concede points, even when it’s in the US’s long-term interest. It calls into question not only his negotiating skills but his judgment and commitment to achieving tangible results. It would make you think that somebody who brags so much about their negotiating abilities would have made a deal, any deal, by now.
The entire episode raises the question of Trump’s actual negotiating capabilities. His past business dealings, marked by bankruptcies and financial controversies, don’t exactly paint a picture of a master negotiator. Even the infamous “Art of the Deal” seems more like a marketing gimmick than a strategic manual. It makes you wonder if his focus has always been more on self-promotion and image management than on achieving substantive outcomes that benefit his constituents. His focus seems far more fixated on short-term victories and personal gain, even if they lead to long-term losses for the United States.
The perception of Trump’s weakness among global leaders is arguably his biggest problem. Iran, Russia, North Korea, and China are all aware that their actions carry relatively little risk of serious consequences, because he doesn’t seem to have the fortitude to make the hard choices. This weakness emboldens adversaries and undermines American credibility on the international stage. He’s facing the consequences of his own actions, and what seems to be a glaring lack of foresight. It seems he only understands negotiation in purely transactional terms, overlooking the crucial role of trust and mutual respect.
Trump’s approach to negotiation seems dangerously simplistic, often framed as a win-lose scenario where he’s determined to emerge as the victor, regardless of the costs or potential negative consequences. This mindset, often coupled with erratic behavior and impulsive decision-making, does not inspire confidence among international allies and only serves to intensify conflicts rather than resolving them. Perhaps the most telling aspect of this is how easily he seems to shift his position, showing a lack of consistent strategy and reinforcing the impression of weakness. Ultimately, this approach to negotiation has proven far less effective than he likely believed, damaging relationships and creating more problems than it has resolved.