Trump’s Transactional Foreign Policy: Ukraine, Iran & a Rules-Based Shift

The resurgence of Donald Trump on the political stage is bringing with it a distinct shift in US foreign policy, one characterized by transactionalism and positional bargaining rather than a commitment to established, rules-based international frameworks. This approach, as outlined by Ana Palacio in a recent analysis, is particularly evident in the ongoing negotiations surrounding the conflicts in Ukraine and the potential for a nuclear Iran. Palacio argues that this style of negotiation, while potentially effective in simple exchanges, is fundamentally unsuited to the complexities of geopolitical challenges requiring long-term stability and adaptable frameworks.

A Departure from Traditional Diplomacy

Palacio’s core argument centers on the distinction between positional bargaining – focusing on securing specific terms in a single negotiation – and a more holistic approach that aims to build enduring frameworks for managing future developments. The current US administration, under President Trump, appears to be favoring the former, prioritizing immediate gains over the establishment of sustainable, long-term solutions. This shift has implications for global stability and the predictability of US foreign policy. The focus on transactionalism, or “what’s in it for us,” risks undermining the alliances and international norms that have underpinned global security for decades.

This isn’t simply a stylistic difference; it represents a fundamental change in how the US views its role in the world. Traditionally, the US has positioned itself as a guarantor of the international order, working within established institutions and frameworks to address global challenges. The current approach, however, suggests a willingness to operate outside these structures, prioritizing bilateral deals and leveraging US power to achieve specific objectives. This is a departure from the post-World War II consensus that shaped US foreign policy for over seventy years.

Ukraine and Iran: Case Studies in Transactionalism

The negotiations regarding Ukraine and Iran serve as prime examples of this new approach. In the case of Ukraine, the US has provided significant military and financial aid, but the conditions attached to that aid, and the overall strategy for resolving the conflict, appear to be driven by a desire to extract concessions from Russia rather than a comprehensive plan for lasting peace. Similarly, in the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, the focus seems to be on securing guarantees that Iran will not develop nuclear weapons, without necessarily addressing the underlying geopolitical tensions that fuel the Iranian nuclear ambitions. Ana Palacio highlights that these negotiations, while seemingly unrelated, both demonstrate a pattern of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability.

The implications of this approach are significant. In Ukraine, a focus on transactionalism could lead to a frozen conflict, with Russia continuing to occupy parts of Ukrainian territory. In the case of Iran, a narrow focus on preventing nuclear proliferation could exacerbate regional tensions and potentially lead to a wider conflict. Both scenarios highlight the risks of prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability.

The Risks of Positional Bargaining

Positional bargaining, while potentially effective in certain contexts, carries inherent risks in the realm of international diplomacy. It can lead to a breakdown in trust, as parties may perceive the negotiations as unfair or manipulative. It can also create a zero-sum mentality, where one party’s gain is seen as another party’s loss, making it difficult to reach mutually beneficial agreements. It can undermine the legitimacy of international institutions and norms, weakening the foundations of the global order.

The potential consequences extend beyond the immediate geopolitical issues at hand. A US foreign policy based on transactionalism could erode the confidence of allies, encourage adversaries, and ultimately diminish US influence in the world. This could lead to a more fragmented and unstable international environment, with increased risks of conflict and economic disruption. The long-term costs of this approach could far outweigh any short-term gains.

The Broader Context: A Shifting World Order

This shift in US foreign policy is occurring against the backdrop of a broader transformation in the global order. The rise of China, the resurgence of Russia, and the increasing interconnectedness of the global economy are all contributing to a more complex and multipolar world. In this new environment, the traditional US role as a global hegemon is being challenged, and the US is facing increasing competition from other powers. Recent analysis suggests that the post-2025 world order will be markedly different from the one that has prevailed for the past several decades.

The US response to these challenges will be critical in shaping the future of the global order. A continued reliance on transactionalism and positional bargaining could further erode US influence and contribute to a more unstable world. A more constructive approach would involve working with allies, strengthening international institutions, and pursuing long-term solutions to global challenges.

What Lies Ahead: Procedural Steps and Potential Outcomes

Currently, negotiations with both Russia and Iran remain ongoing, with no clear resolution in sight. The Biden administration has signaled a willingness to engage in diplomacy, but has also maintained a firm stance on key principles. The outcome of these negotiations will depend on a number of factors, including the willingness of all parties to compromise, the evolving geopolitical landscape, and domestic political considerations within the US and other countries.

Looking ahead, several key procedural steps will be crucial. In the case of Ukraine, continued military and financial aid from the US and its allies will be essential to support the Ukrainian government and deter further Russian aggression. In the case of Iran, the US will need to decide whether to rejoin the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the 2015 nuclear agreement, or pursue alternative strategies to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The timing and nature of these decisions will have significant implications for regional stability and global security. The US State Department is currently reviewing all options, with a formal announcement expected in the coming months. The State Department website provides updates on US foreign policy initiatives.

the success of US foreign policy will depend on its ability to adapt to the changing global landscape and to forge a new path forward that prioritizes long-term stability and cooperation over short-term gains and transactionalism.