Treating war like a deal, and deals like war···Trump lost ‘allies’ through the war ② - 경향신문

This article was translated by an AI tool. Feedback Here.

U.S. President Donald Trump attends the Group of Seven (G7) summit in Evian, France, on the 17th of last month (local time). AFP-Yonhap

What, if anything, has U.S. President Donald Trump gained from the war with Iran? Iran suffered enormous military and economic damage over the course of the war, yet some assess that it emerged with a new deterrent in the form of control over the Strait of Hormuz and the unfreezing of its funds. By contrast, what the United States gained from this war is unclear.

But what President Trump lost in the war seems clear. Over the course of this war, he lost ‘allies’. By putting deals first, he alienated allied nations. And in the rush to push for an end to the war, he failed to preserve relations with the ally Israel, which is now hampering follow-on negotiations with Iran.

U.S. President Donald Trump and NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte speak in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, U.S., on the 24th of last month (local time). EPA-Yonhap

The second Trump administration, under the banner of ‘America First’, has imposed reciprocal tariffs on traditional allies and demanded greater burden-sharing for defense. Rather than long-term alliances grounded in shared goals such as ideology and values, a ‘transactional diplomacy’ that judges cooperation primarily by U.S. interests has become the administration’s guiding line.

Yet after downplaying the value of alliances by putting transactional diplomacy first, President Trump displayed a contradictory posture by asking allies for cooperation following the strikes on Iran. After the strikes, the administration asked South Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, France and others to dispatch warships to counter a blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. But countries including South Korea effectively ignored the president’s request. The UK also initially refused the use of U.S. bases on its soil, later limiting it to strictly defensive purposes, and Italy denied the U.S. use of its air base in Sicily.

Afterward, the administration ratcheted up pressure by hinting it could withdraw U.S. forces stationed in Europe. Even after meeting NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte on the 24th of last month, President Trump voiced his displeasure, saying, “NATO allies did not help in the war with Iran.”

As for the $300 billion (about 454 trillion won) Iran reconstruction fund specified in the bilateral memorandum of understanding (MOU) on ending the war, a plan is being discussed to raise it not with U.S. government money but through private capital from the Middle East, Asia and elsewhere. This financing approach is also drawing criticism as a measure that shifts the costs of war onto allies.

Analysts say the allies’ cool response is the price of President Trump’s diplomacy, which has long demanded quid pro quos from other countries. Cha Tae-seo, a professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Seoul National University, noted, “The Trump administration that has weakened alliance ties is now properly paying the costs,” adding, “From the allies’ perspective, watching the United States champion ‘deals’ while inflicting only harm and then hold out its hand only when it needs help can only erode trust in the U.S.”

The rifts in alliances exposed by the war are likely to burden the United States’ future Iran policy. In particular, with European countries that for decades have served as mediators on the Iran issue turning away, they may not cooperate with Washington’s Iran policy going forward, analyzed Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). In 2015, the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) under former President Barack Obama secured legitimacy as Russia, China, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany signed on and agreed to take steps to sustain it. But such countries now seem unlikely to participate in the current U.S.-Iran agreement.

Gulf states that suffered direct harm during the war are moving to scale back their security alliances with the United States and, further, to expand cooperation with Iran. With Iran’s position in the Middle East actually strengthened by this war, Gulf states may also seek ways to coexist with Tehran.

Daniel Byman, a professor at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, wrote in the U.S. foreign affairs magazine Foreign Policy, “The United States did not consult with its allies before attacking Iran, and after the attack made unrealistic and alienating demands, such as dispatching forces to keep the Strait of Hormuz open,” adding, “The cumulative effect has raised doubts about whether U.S. leadership can be trusted, and that will persist even after a concrete agreement with Iran.”

U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu embrace as they enter the Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., on December 29 last year. Reuters-Yonhap

Israel, which became the biggest variable in the end-of-war talks, has also laid bare missteps in the Trump administration’s foreign policy. In this war, U.S.-Israel military cooperation reached an unprecedented level, and some even assessed that Israel demonstrated the capability to be the United States’ peer military partner. But when President Trump hurriedly concluded the MOU without consulting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, bilateral relations deteriorated rapidly.

President Trump’s ‘bypassing’ of Prime Minister Netanyahu boomeranged in the follow-on negotiations with Iran. Even after the MOU was signed, Israel attacked Hezbollah, the pro-Iranian armed faction in Lebanon, and refused to withdraw from Lebanon, jeopardizing the subsequent U.S.-Iran talks.

With the follow-on talks with Iran faltering, President Trump is also struggling to rein in Israel. Reportedly enraged that Israel continued its attacks in Lebanon on May 28, he criticized Netanyahu in a phone call, using the phrase, “crazy.” Israel also announced on the 28th of last month that it had destroyed Hezbollah’s underground tunnels in southern Lebanon.

Some, however, forecast that the clash between Netanyahu and President Trump will not last long. Jang Ji-hyang, director of the Center for Regional Studies at the Asan Institute for Policy Studies, said, “There is talk that, through its cooperation in this war, Israel for the first time rose to the status of the United States’ (military) partner,” but added, “The risks Israel would have to bear to keep taking actions the United States has prohibited would be too great.”

President Trump’s alliance-blind foreign policy and the fallout of the war are also affecting public opinion at home. In a poll of 1,262 U.S. adults conducted by Reuters and Ipsos and released on the 23rd of last month, only 24% of respondents said the war with Iran had been worth the ‘cost.’ In the same survey, the president’s job-approval rating was 34%. The midterm elections this November are likely to reveal voters’ judgment on the president’s diplomatic missteps over the war.

Professor Cha assessed, “The war has not only damaged President Trump’s international reputation, it has also exposed the limits of U.S. military power,” adding, “It is hard even to know what the United States’ war aims were.”