"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen." So supposedly said the Russian revolutionary leader Vladimir Ilyich Lenin. The diplomatic whirlwind that has surrounded US President Donald Trump this week suggests the old Bolshevik might have been onto something. For the protectionist president, who promises always to put America First, has in recent days instead been busy bestriding the world stage. He and his team have done business deals in the Gulf; lifted sanctions on Syria; negotiated the release of a US citizen held by Hamas; ended military strikes on Houthi fighters in Yemen; slashed American tariffs on China; ordered Ukraine to hold talks with Russia in Turkey; continued quiet negotiations with Iran over a nuclear deal; and even claimed responsibility for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan... The pace has been breathless, leaving allies and opponents alike struggling to catch up as the US diplomatic bandwagon hurtled from issue to issue. "Just, wow!" remarked one London-based ambassador. "It is almost impossible to stay on top of everything that's going on." So whatisgoing on? What have we learned in this frantic week about the US president's emerging foreign policy? Is there something approaching a Trump doctrine - or is this just a coincidental confluence of global events? A good place to start, perhaps, is the president's visit to the Gulf where he set out - in word and deed - his vision for a world of interstate relations based on trade, not war. In a speech in Riyadh, Trump said he wanted "commerce not chaos" in the Middle East, a region that "exports technology not terrorism". His was a prospect of a breezy, pragmatic mercantilism where nations did business deals to their mutual benefit, a world where profit can bring peace. As he enjoyed the flattery of his Saudi hosts and the obeisance of visiting dignitaries, the president signed - with his fat felt tip pen - deals that the White House claimed represented $600bn of investment in the US. This was Trump in all his pomp; applauded and rewarded with immediate wins he could sell back home as good for American jobs. Some diplomats privately questioned the value of the various memorandums of understanding. But the show, they said, was more important than the substance. Absent from Trump's speech was any mention of possible collective action by the US and other countries; no talk of multilateral cooperation against the threat of climate change, no concerns about challenges to democratic or human rights in the region. This was a discourse almost entirely without reference to ideology or values except to dismiss their significance. Rather, he used his speech to Saudi leaders to make his clearest argument yet against Western interventionism of the past, attacking what he called "the so-called nation-builders and neo-cons" for "giving you lectures on how to live or how to govern your own affairs". To the applause of his Arab audience, he said these "Western interventionists" had "wrecked more nations than they built", adding: "Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it's our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. "I believe it's God's job to sit in judgement. My job is to defend America." That reluctance to intervene was on show in recent days when it came to the fighting between India and Pakistan. In the past, the US has often played a key role seeking to end military confrontations in the subcontinent. But the Trump White House was initially cautious about getting involved. Vice-President JD Vance told Fox News the fighting was "fundamentally none of our business… We can't control these countries". In the end, both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio did make calls, putting pressure on both nuclear powers to de-escalate. So too did other countries. When the ceasefire was agreed, Trump claimed US diplomacy had brokered the deal. But that was flatly dismissed by Indian diplomats who insisted it was a bilateral truce. The centrality of Trump to US foreign policy has also become apparent this week. This is more than just a simple truism. On show was the lack of involvement of other parts of the US government that traditionally help shape US decision-making overseas. Take the president's extraordinary decision to meet Syria's new president and former jihadist, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions on Syria. This showed the potential advantage of having foreign policy in one man's hands: it was a decisive and bold step. And it was clearly the president's personal decision, after heavy lobbying by both Turkey and Saudi Arabia. It was seen by some diplomats as the quid pro quo for the diplomatic fawning and investment deals Trump received in Riyadh. Not only did the decision surprise many in the region but it also surprised many in the American government. Diplomats said the State Department was reluctant to lift sanctions, wanting to keep some leverage over the new Syrian government, fearful it was not doing enough to protect minorities and tackle foreign fighters. Diplomats say this pattern of impulsive decision-making without wider internal government discussion is common in the White House. The result, they say, is not always positive. This is due, in part, to Trump's lack of consistency (or put simply, changing his mind). Take the decision this week to do a deal with China to cut tariffs on trade with the US. A few weeks ago Trump imposed 145% tariffs on Beijing, with blood thirsty warnings against retaliation. The Chinese retaliated, the markets plunged, American businesses warned of dire consequences. So in Geneva, US officials climbed down and most tariffs against China were cut to 30%, supposedly in return for some increased US access to Chinese markets. This followed a now-familiar pattern: issue maximalist demands, threaten worse, negotiate, climb down and declare victory. The problem is that this "art of a deal" strategy might work on easily reversible decisions such as tariffs. It is harder to apply to longer term diplomatic conundrums such as war. Take Russia's invasion of Ukraine. On this, Trump's policy has been fluid, to put it mildly. And this week was a case in point. Last Saturday the leaders of the UK, France, Poland and Germany visited Kyiv to put on a show of support for Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. And in a group call with Trump on French President Emmanuel Macron's phone, they spelled out their strategy of demanding Russia agree an immediate 30-day ceasefire or face tougher sanctions. This was Trump's policy too. The day before he wrote on social media: "If the ceasefire is not respected, the US and its partners will impose further sanctions." But then on Sunday, President Vladimir Putin suggested instead there should be direct talks between Ukraine and Russia in Turkey on Thursday. Trump immediately went along with this, backtracking on the strategy he had agreed with European leaders a day earlier. "Ukraine should agree to (these talks) immediately," he wrote on social media. "I am starting to doubt that Ukraine will make a deal with Putin." Then on Thursday, Trump changed his position again, saying a deal could be done only if he and Putin were to meet in person. This puzzles some diplomats. "Does he genuinely not know what he wants to do about the war in Ukraine?" one remarked to me. "Or does he just grasp at what might offer the quickest resolution possible?" Into this puzzling mix fell two other decisions this week. First, Trump agreed a ceasefire after a campaign bombing Houthi fighters in Yemen for almost two months. There have been questions about the effectiveness of the hugely expensive air strikes, and the president's appetite for a long military operation. He repeatedly told his Arab hosts how much he disliked war. Second, Trump's envoy, Steve Witkoff, held his fourth round of talks with Iran over efforts to curb their nuclear ambitions. Both sides are hinting that a deal is possible, although sceptics fear it could be quite modest. Talk of joint US-Israeli military action against Iran seems to have dissipated. What unites both issues is that the United States was acting directly against the wishes of Israel. Benjamin Netanyahu may have been the first world leader invited to the Oval Office after Trump's inauguration, but in recent days, he seems to have been snubbed. Trump toured the Middle East without visiting Israel; he lifted sanctions on Syria without Israel's support. His Houthi ceasefire came only days after the group attacked Tel Aviv airport. Diplomats fear Netanyahu's reaction. Could the spurned prime minister respond with a more aggressive military operation in Gaza? So after this week of diplomatic hurly burly, how much has changed? Perhaps less than might appear. For all the glitz of Trump's tour through the Middle East, the fighting and humanitarian crisis in Gaza continues unresolved. A fresh Israeli offensive seems imminent. One of Trump's chief aims – the normalisation of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia - remains distant. For all the talks about ending the war in Ukraine, there is no greater likelihood of the guns falling silent. Putin's ambitions seem unchanged. And for all the deals to cut US tariffs, either with the UK or China, there is still huge global market instability. We do have a clearer idea of Trump's global ideology, one that is not isolationist but mercantilist, hoping optimistically that capitalism can overcome conflict. We also have a clearer idea of his haste, his desire to clear his diplomatic decks – in the Middle East, Ukraine and the subcontinent – so he can focus on his primary concern, namely China. But that may prove an elusive ambition. If there are weeks when decades happen, there are also weeks when nothing happens. Top picture credit: Getty Images BBC InDepthis the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. And we showcase thought-provoking content from across BBC Sounds and iPlayer too. You can send us your feedback on the InDepth section by clicking on the button below.
Trump's frantic week of peace brokering hints at what he really wants
TruthLens AI Suggested Headline:
"Trump Engages in Intense Diplomacy Amid Shifting Foreign Policy Priorities"
Bbc News
6.3
TruthLens AI Summary
This past week has been a whirlwind of diplomatic activity for U.S. President Donald Trump, showcasing a significant shift in his foreign policy approach, which seemingly prioritizes trade over traditional military interventions. Trump has engaged in various high-profile negotiations, including lifting sanctions on Syria, orchestrating the release of a U.S. citizen held by Hamas, and even claiming credit for brokering a ceasefire between India and Pakistan. His visit to the Gulf highlighted his vision for a new paradigm in international relations, where he promotes commerce as a pathway to peace, arguing that nations should engage in mutually beneficial business deals. Despite the grandiosity of these efforts, some diplomats expressed skepticism about the substantive outcomes of these agreements, suggesting that the showmanship of Trump's diplomacy may overshadow its actual effectiveness. Moreover, Trump's rhetoric during his speeches, particularly in Riyadh, rejected the notion of Western interventionism, instead advocating for national sovereignty and a hands-off approach to governance in the Middle East.
However, this week also revealed the unpredictable nature of Trump's foreign policy decisions. His approach has been characterized by a lack of consistency, as illustrated by his fluctuating stance on tariffs with China and the conflict in Ukraine. While he initially aligned with European leaders on a strategy for Ukraine, he quickly shifted to support direct talks between Ukraine and Russia, raising questions about his commitment to a coherent policy. Additionally, Trump's recent decisions, such as agreeing to a ceasefire in Yemen and engaging in negotiations with Iran, further complicate the geopolitical landscape, particularly given that these actions seem to diverge from Israel's interests. The broader implications of Trump's week of frenetic diplomacy indicate an emerging mercantilist ideology, one that seeks to leverage economic partnerships to address global conflicts, but it remains to be seen how effective this strategy will be in achieving lasting peace or stability in the regions involved. Ultimately, while the past week was marked by significant activity, the enduring challenges and crises in places like Gaza and Ukraine suggest that the outcomes may be less impactful than anticipated.
TruthLens AI Analysis
The article outlines a series of diplomatic actions undertaken by former President Donald Trump, presenting them as part of a larger strategy that reflects his foreign policy approach. It suggests a significant shift in the typical American stance on international relations, emphasizing trade over conflict. This analysis will delve into the implications of these actions, the potential motives behind them, and their impact on global dynamics.
Diplomatic Whirlwind and Its Implications
The rapid succession of diplomatic engagements by Trump suggests a calculated effort to reshape the narrative around his presidency. By securing deals and promoting peace talks, he aims to position himself as a global leader rather than merely a protector of American interests. The quote from Lenin underscores the potential for historic shifts during condensed periods of time, implying that these actions could lead to substantial changes in international relations.
Perception Management
The article seems designed to create a perception of Trump as a proactive peace broker, showcasing a departure from his previously more isolationist tendencies. By highlighting his successes in various regions, the narrative seeks to bolster his image domestically and internationally. This could be aimed at rallying support from those who value diplomatic initiatives over military actions, thus appealing to a broader audience.
Potential Concealment of Issues
In focusing on Trump's diplomatic achievements, the article may be diverting attention from other pressing issues, such as domestic challenges or criticisms of his administration's policies. By framing these actions positively, it could be an attempt to distract from controversies or failures that could undermine his reputation.
Manipulation Assessment
The article appears to have a moderate level of manipulative intent, primarily through its selective emphasis on Trump's successes while downplaying the complexities and potential failures of his foreign policy. The language used is largely positive, suggesting a focus on framing these events in a favorable light, which can influence public perception.
Truthfulness of Content
While the events described in the article are grounded in reality, the interpretation and emphasis on their significance could be seen as biased. The portrayal of Trump as a peace broker may oversimplify the complexities of international relations and the various factors at play in these negotiations.
Target Audience and Support Base
The narrative likely appeals to Trump’s supporter base, particularly those who prioritize American leadership in global affairs and prefer diplomatic solutions to military interventions. The framing of his actions as constructive and beneficial aligns well with the preferences of a segment of the population that values trade and economic partnerships.
Economic and Political Impact
The article could influence market perceptions, particularly in sectors tied to international trade and relations. Positive news surrounding diplomatic efforts might bolster investor confidence, potentially impacting stock prices of companies involved in international trade or defense.
Geopolitical Relevance
In terms of global power dynamics, the emphasis on trade over military engagement suggests a potential shift in how the United States interacts with other nations. This could have long-term implications for alliances and conflicts, especially in areas like the Middle East and Asia, where economic interests often intersect with security concerns.
Artificial Intelligence Influence
It is plausible that AI tools were used in crafting this article, particularly in the formulation of language that aims to resonate with readers' emotions. Models focusing on natural language processing could have influenced the tone and structure of the piece, guiding it toward a more favorable portrayal of Trump’s actions.
In conclusion, the article serves to shape public perception of Trump’s foreign policy as proactive and beneficial, while potentially masking underlying challenges and criticisms. It reflects an attempt to present a coherent narrative that aligns with his administration's goals and messaging.