Diplomats spend careers learning to say nothing in as many words as possible. On Monday, President Donald Trump did the opposite.
Asked about Oman’s role in the Strait of Hormuz negotiations, the president told Fox News that if Muscat “gets in the way,” the United States would “bomb the s*** out of them.” It was crude, it was public, and it was aimed at a country Washington has called a partner for half a century.
It was also, whether Foggy Bottom wants to admit it or not, effective.
The remark landed on the day a 60-day window for a broader U.S.-Iran peace deal expired without an agreement. And on the same day, Tehran announced it had reached its own understanding with Oman on how ships would transit the strait.
Trump wasn’t threatening violence in a vacuum. He was threatening it into a negotiation that was, at that moment, producing results. The question worth asking isn’t whether the president’s language offends the diplomatic class. It is whether the pressure behind it is doing what pressure is supposed to do: Move an adversary who has spent two months stalling.
The rhetoric of this kind functions as leverage precisely because it breaks with convention. A carefully worded State Department statement tells Tehran and its intermediaries exactly what to expect and exactly how much room they have to maneuver. Trump’s approach removes that certainty. Iran’s negotiators cannot calculate their way around a president who says he is “not in a hurry” one day and threatens to level a neighboring capital’s port infrastructure the next. That unpredictability has a cost, and the cost falls on the side with less patience, which, after two years of a war that has already dragged in Saudi Arabia and emboldened the Houthis to strike shipping in the Red Sea, is not the United States.
The ambiguity about American resolve has rarely served American interests in this region. The Obama and Biden administrations both preferred careful, calibrated statements about red lines in the Gulf, and both discovered that calibration invites testing. Iran’s proxies do not respond to nuance — they respond to consequences they believe will actually arrive. Trump’s language is inelegant, but it removes any doubt about what happens if the strait stays closed. A rival who believes a threat will be carried out behaves differently from one who suspects it is theater. That distinction matters more than the phrasing used to convey it.
Oman itself does not appear to be behaving like a country under genuine threat of American bombs. Talks between Muscat and Tehran over the transit map continued the same day the remark was published, with an Iranian spokesman describing the discussions as complex but ongoing. If Oman’s government believed Trump’s words reflected actual policy rather than pressure aimed past it and at Iran, the negotiations would have stopped. They didn’t. Sixty years of quiet cooperation between Washington and Muscat give Oman’s leaders the standing to read Trump’s rhetoric for what it is rather than what it sounds like.
None of this means the remark was costless. There is a reasonable argument that talking this way about a treaty partner, however loosely defined, corrodes the trust that makes alliances durable in the first place. Allies who fear becoming collateral language in an American president’s negotiating strategy may hedge their bets elsewhere, and a Gulf state weighing its options between Washington and Beijing has more of them today than it did a decade ago. That risk is real, and it deserves more attention than this administration tends to give it.
TRUMP PROMISED TO CUT OFF CHINA. HIS LATEST TARIFF TWEAK JUST RESCUED IT
But it is a risk to be managed, not a reason to prefer the alternative. The alternative, tried repeatedly over the past two decades, has been careful language paired with strategic drift: Ceasefires that expire on schedule, deadlines that pass without consequence, and a Strait of Hormuz that closes whenever Tehran finds it useful. Trump’s approach has flaws, but it has also coincided with the first concrete movement on Hormuz access in months. That correlation isn’t proof, but it isn’t nothing either.
Diplomats will keep insisting that words matter, that presidents should choose them with care, that allies deserve better than profanity delivered through a cable news interview. They are not wrong about the stakes. They are wrong about the remedy. In a negotiation with an adversary that has ignored quiet language for years, the loudest voice in the room finally has Tehran’s attention. Whether it keeps it is the only question that will end up mattering.
Brabim Karki is a columnist and commentator who writes for international publications including the Independent, Nikkei Asia, South China Morning Post, The Hill, Hindustan Times, the Economic Times, the Indian Express, CNN-News18, the Japan Times, and the Straits Times.