President Donald Trump has previously blamed U.S. weakness on the international stage on his two predecessors as having emboldened bad actors, and rightly so. Former President Barack Obama’s milquetoast walk back from his Syrian “red line” (and acceding to the Russian-brokered sham agreement on former Syrian President Bashar Assad’s chemical weapons) and former President Joe Biden’s hasty withdrawal and handwashing from Afghanistan sent a signal that America was uninterested in doing the hard and messy things required for international security.
This sense that America lacked the resolve to oppose aggression and malign influence invited and incentivized more crises, such as the annexation of Crimea, increased Iranian proxy attacks, and a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Now, however, Trump faces two decisions that will test his resolve and demonstrate whether America has the will to stand up to adversaries and rivals in dealing with Russian recalcitrance on a Ukrainian ceasefire and with the Iranian nuclear program.
To take the lead on these negotiations, Trump has turned to his confidant and special envoy for the Middle East —but de facto lead American negotiator — Steve Witkoff. Coming off of negotiations with Hamas that many critics felt were too conciliatory to the requests of the terrorist organization, Witkoff has made concerning signals that more savvy negotiating parties could again take him in. While nothing is yet set in stone, agreeing to deals in line with Witkoff’s recent statements could further the idea of American fecklessness, spinelessness, and naivete.
In dealing with Iran during his first administration, the president demonstrated a willingness to eschew incentives and concessions to Iran and instead conducted the maximum pressure campaign to compel Iranian behavior. Building on this in his second term, Trump initially presented a firm hand in dealing with Iran, including threats of military action if a deal is not reached. While direct negotiations have gotten underway, the Iranians do not seem to have stopped their previous stalling techniques and obfuscation.
Further, Witkoff’s recent statements seemed to endorse Iran’s retention of enrichment capability to 3.67%, levels allowed under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement that Trump previously condemned. This line of thinking regarding Iran negotiations suggests he is either wholly unfamiliar with the history of previous agreements and issues at hand or easily taken in by the parties on the other side. Neither provides confidence in a positive outcome. Witkoff has since attempted to walk back those statements, but the perception of malleability is already established.
Witkoff’s public pronouncements on Russia have further suggested a weak hand in his attempts to negotiate a ceasefire to the war in Ukraine. He has seemed favorable to a settlement that would provide Russia with each and every goal of its nefarious invasion (Russian annexation of all disputed oblasts and guarantees distancing Ukraine from the West), with absolutely nothing conceded by the aggressor. This is like walking onto a car dealer’s lot, paying above sticker price, and telling the world you smooth-talked your way into a great deal.
Witkoff does not, as of yet, seem to be the master negotiator we were promised he was. Russia’s Palm Sunday attack against Sumy, juxtaposed against images of Witkoff smiling in Saint Petersburg, does not help the perception that the country is not taking Witkoff, or his boss, seriously. Answering Russia’s dismissive responses to the president’s call for a ceasefire with complete capitulation to Russian requests does not communicate strength.
UKRAINE AND RUSSIA EXCHANGE PRISONERS, ACCUSE EACH OTHER OF VIOLATING EASTER ‘TRUCE’
In his first term, the president was at times willing to defer to subordinates who appeared eager for a deal, or to continue negotiations, to the point that they agreed to terms from which they should have walked away. He should resist this urge and instead reaffirm the resolve he has talked about, but now deliver with more than words. A failure to do so will continue this trend of perceived American fecklessness, result in adverse outcomes in these two specific scenarios (continued Russian aggression in Ukraine and greater likelihood of an Iranian bomb), and definitely shape the thinking in Beijing — estimating the risk that the United States will have the wherewithal to oppose attempts at a conquest of Taiwan.
The president has stated he plans to achieve “peace through strength.” Now is the time to exert that strength. Without it, the chances for peace diminish.
Mike Nelson (@mikenelson586) is a retired Army Special Forces officer and a member of the Atlantic Council’s Counterterrorism Project. He is formerly of the Institute for the Study of War and the National Security Institute.