news analysis
Allies say the foreign policy narrative of “flooding the zone” is working. But critics say the rush in Israel, Ukraine and Iran may not lead to stable, long-term solutions to conflicts around the world.
When it comes to confronting global conflicts, President Trump is in a hurry.
Even before his inauguration, the president took credit for what he called an “EPIC ceasefire” in Gaza. He rushed to get Ukraine and Russia to quickly accept a pause in hostilities. And with Iran, Mr. Trump wants a deal within two months to stop Tehran from developing nuclear weapons.
It is the foreign-policy version of the president’s “flood the zone” approach in Washington, where he and his aides have used blitzkrieg tactics to dismantle the bureaucracy, consolidate executive power and attack his political enemies. On the world stage, Mr. Trump has also adopted a rush-to-resolve foreign-policy approach designed to quickly resolve the disputes he inherited.
But his diplomatic impatience is now colliding with the difficulties of war and peace, raising questions about the durability of what he has achieved so far. The ceasefire between Gaza and Israel has collapsed. Mr Trump’s offer of an immediate 30-day ceasefire was rejected by Russian President Vladimir Putin. And a nuclear deal with Iran – not unlike the one he withdrew from during his first term – appears to remain far over the horizon, despite his desire for a swift agreement.
“Trump’s modus operandi is always to rush, to look for a deal, something temporary, something short-term,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator and fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
“American foreign policy — Ukraine, Gaza, Iran — they’re not measured in terms of administrations. It’s generational,” Mr. Miller said. He added that rushing a decision was risky “because he’s in such a rush to get results that he’s kind of misdiagnosing the problem.”
