At a moment when American power is most loudly proclaimed, Harvard scholar Stephen Walt observes it quietly receding — not through defeat, but through the erosion of something more foundational than military might: credibility. The Trump administration's approach to Iran, built on unpredictability and contradiction, has hollowed out the diplomatic architecture that makes negotiation possible, leaving two adversaries locked in a stalemate neither can escape nor afford to break. It is an old lesson returning in new form — that the nation which cannot be trusted to mean what it says loses influen
Trump's Iran Strategy Backfires as Unpredictability Undermines US Position
The Iranians have no reason to believe anything Trump tells them
Mark
Why does Trump's unpredictability matter so much? Doesn't it sometimes work as a negotiating tactic?
Mimi
It might work in a single transaction—a real estate deal, say—where both sides know they'll never see each other again. But with nations, you're in a permanent relationship. Iran has to assume Trump might do anything next, which means they can't rely on any agreement he makes. That's paralyzing for diplomacy.
Mark
So you're saying both sides are stuck because neither trusts the other enough to move?
Mimi
Exactly. And it's not just distrust of Trump personally. It's distrust of whether any American commitment will hold. Will the next president honor it? Will Trump reverse it again? When that uncertainty is baked in, the incentive to negotiate disappears.
Mark
What about the idea that unpredictability keeps adversaries off-balance, makes them hesitant to act?
Mimi
That's the theory. But what you actually get is a stalemate where nobody moves—not because they're afraid, but because they can't predict the consequences of moving. It's not strength. It's paralysis dressed up as toughness.
Mark
And this affects America's position globally, not just with Iran?
Mimi
Fundamentally. American power has always rested on the assumption that when America says something, it means it. Allies plan around that. Adversaries calculate around that. When that assumption breaks down, you lose leverage everywhere.
Mark
Is there a way out of this stalemate?
Mimi
Only if someone—either side—decides the cost of waiting is higher than the cost of moving. But with no credible communication, no one knows what the other side actually wants or will accept. You're stuck.
Il Polso
- Trump's pattern of reversals and contradictions has convinced Iranian leaders that no American commitment can be trusted, making meaningful negotiation functionally impossible.
- The result is a 'hurting stalemate' — neither side willing to escalate, neither willing to retreat, both absorbing pressure while waiting for the other to fracture first.
- The very unpredictability Trump believes projects strength is being read by allies and adversaries alike as unreliability, steadily narrowing America's room to maneuver.
- On Israel-Palestine, Walt sees a parallel paralysis: without American willingness to apply pressure, the concept of Greater Israel goes unchallenged and no political horizon for Palestinians emerges.
- As credibility erodes across multiple fronts, the risk of miscalculation rises — not because either side wants war, but because neither side can accurately read the other's intentions.
At a moment when American power is most loudly proclaimed, Harvard scholar Stephen Walt observes it quietly receding — not through defeat, but through the erosion of something more foundational than military might: credibility. The Trump administration's approach to Iran, built on unpredictability and contradiction, has hollowed out the diplomatic architecture that makes negotiation possible, leaving two adversaries locked in a stalemate neither can escape nor afford to break. It is an old lesson returning in new form — that the nation which cannot be trusted to mean what it says loses influence not with a confrontation, but with a silence.
Stephen Walt, who studies international relations at Harvard, has spent the past year watching the Trump administration's Iran policy contradict its own central promise — that this presidency would restore American strength abroad.
The core problem, in Walt's telling, is not the absence of a strategy but the destruction of the precondition for any strategy to work: trust. Iran has watched Trump abandon agreements, reverse positions without warning, and issue threats of uncertain sincerity. In that environment, the Iranians have no rational basis for negotiating. You cannot bargain with a counterpart you believe will not honor what they say.
What has taken shape instead is what Walt calls a 'hurting stalemate.' Neither Washington nor Tehran wants to push the conflict toward open war — the costs are too severe. But neither is prepared to stand down. Both sides hold their positions, absorb the pressure, and wait. It is not peace. It is a grinding paralysis in which the greatest danger is not deliberate escalation but miscalculation.
Walt finds the broader pattern equally troubling. Trump campaigned on reversing American decline, yet the unpredictability he deploys as a show of strength reads to the outside world as unreliability. Allies grow uncertain. Adversaries lose incentive to negotiate. The net effect is a diminished American position — the opposite of what was promised.
On Israel and Palestine, Walt sees little prospect for movement. Both American parties have largely deferred to Israeli political leadership, where commitment to territorial expansion beyond the 1967 borders remains powerful. Without American willingness to push back, no genuine settlement is within reach.
What connects these failures, Walt argues, is a single unraveling thread: credibility. American power has long rested on the assumption that American commitments mean something. Diplomacy requires it. Alliances require it. Even deterrence requires an adversary to believe the threat is real. Strip that away, and what remains is force alone — and force, history suggests, cannot substitute for the sustained political will that only trust makes possible.
Stephen Walt, who studies how nations interact with one another at Harvard, has spent the better part of a year watching the Trump administration's approach to Iran unravel in ways that seem to contradict the president's central promise: that his leadership would restore American strength on the world stage.
The problem, Walt argues, is not that Trump lacks a strategy toward Iran. It is that his strategy—built on unpredictability, sudden reversals, and threats that may or may not be carried out—has destroyed the very thing that makes diplomacy possible: the belief that the other side will honor what you say. The Iranians, he explains, have no reason to trust anything Trump tells them. They have watched him abandon agreements, reverse course without warning, and speak in contradictions. In that environment, negotiation becomes nearly impossible. You cannot bargain with someone you believe is lying.
What has emerged instead is what Walt calls a "hurting stalemate." Neither the United States nor Iran wants to escalate the conflict further. The costs are too high, the risks too severe. But neither side is willing to step back either. So they wait. They watch. They hold their positions and hope the other side will eventually crack under the pressure. It is a dangerous form of paralysis—not peace, not war, but a grinding standoff where miscalculation becomes the greatest threat.
The broader pattern troubles Walt more. Trump campaigned on the idea that American power had been squandered, that the nation had grown weak, and that his presidency would reverse that decline. Yet many of his policies, Walt observes, are doing the opposite. The unpredictability that Trump may believe projects strength actually projects unreliability. Allies become uncertain whether to trust American commitments. Adversaries lose incentive to negotiate because they cannot predict what the United States will do next. The result is a weaker American position, not a stronger one.
On the Israeli-Palestinian question, Walt sees even less room for movement. Both major American political parties, he notes, have largely ceded pressure on Israel to the Israeli government itself. There remains, in his view, a powerful commitment within Israeli politics to the concept of "Greater Israel"—territorial expansion beyond the 1967 borders. Without American willingness to push back on that vision, no genuine political settlement between Israelis and Palestinians appears possible. The conflict remains frozen, the suffering continues, and the United States finds itself unable or unwilling to use its influence to change the trajectory.
What Walt is describing is a cascade of consequences flowing from a single source: the erosion of American credibility. When the United States cannot be counted on to mean what it says, the entire architecture of American power—which has long rested on the assumption that American commitments are reliable—begins to weaken. Diplomacy requires trust. Alliances require trust. Even deterrence requires the adversary to believe you will do what you threaten. Without it, you are left with only the raw exercise of force, and force alone, history suggests, rarely solves the problems that require sustained political will to resolve.
Citazioni salienti
The Iranians have no reason to believe anything Trump tells them— Stephen Walt, Harvard professor of international relations
Neither side really wants to escalate; they're just waiting for the other side to crack— Stephen Walt, describing the current Iran stalemate
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su Al Jazeera ↗
War & Conflict