By Humeyra Pamuk, Andrea Shalal and Steve Holland
WASHINGTON, Aug 22 (Reuters) - With the Iran war now at a costly standoff and crises from Ukraine to Gaza still unresolved, President Donald Trump's ambitious foreign policy agenda appears stuck as he heads into November's midterm elections.
The setbacks are striking for a president who returned to office last year promising to be a "peacemaker" and made resolving international conflicts a centerpiece of his second-term agenda.
Trump has grown impatient with reporters' questions and even U.S. allies. This week, he lashed out at reporters pressing him on foreign policy issues and renewed his threat to bomb Oman, a U.S. ally negotiating with Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
Labor Day, on September 7 this year, is traditionally when election campaigns kick into high gear, and Republicans face the prospect that unresolved conflicts abroad and their economic fallout at home could cost the party its hold on Congress.
IRAN STALEMATE TAKES POLITICAL TOLL
Trump has called off talks with Tehran after pushing for weeks for a diplomatic solution and announced on Wednesday a new campaign of "economic warfare" against the Islamic Republic in an apparent acknowledgment that months of military attacks have not forced the concessions the U.S. wants to see.
As inflation persists and the Iran war drives up gasoline prices, Trump's approval rating has fallen to another low point with just 33% of Americans in the latest Reuters/Ipsos poll approving of his performance.
Other efforts to broker peace have also stalled.
On Monday, Trump's negotiator and son-in-law Jared Kushner left empty-handed from talks to advance a Gaza peace deal. And an expected visit to Kyiv by Kushner and Trump envoy Steve Witkoff to revive long-stalled negotiations to end Russia's war in Ukraine has yet to happen.
After a string of early foreign policy achievements, including a Gaza ceasefire and the capture of Venezuela's leader, Trump's record has become increasingly defined by his stalled diplomatic efforts.
"Trump has successfully challenged and disrupted the comfortable foreign policy consensus in Washington, but has not translated that disruption into a strategy with deliverables for Americans," said Asli Aydintasbas, a fellow at the Brookings Institution think tank in Washington.
IRAN WAR TESTS TRUMP AT HOME
The conflict with Iran has weighed "intensely" on the president and there is no consensus inside the White House on how to resolve it, one Trump ally said on condition of anonymity.
The pressure could increase if investors conclude the war will drag on, driving up U.S. borrowing costs and further constraining Trump's domestic agenda. Trump has said the economic costs are worth it in order to ensure Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon despite Iran's denials it seeks one.
“President Trump has successfully made America respected again, and the results speak for themselves – nine wars have ended, hostages have been freed from Gaza, trade deals are fairer, and now, Iran will be prevented from ever possessing a nuclear weapon," said White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly.
A senior Trump administration official said U.S. sanctions and a naval blockade had crippled Iran's economy and left it "completely broke," adding, "There are many levers the president can crank harder in the weeks ahead."
AN UNORTHODOX STYLE WITH MIXED RESULTS
Some experts give Trump credit for a willingness to grapple with issues they believe other presidents have been unable or unwilling to solve.
"The president wants a more stable world and that means attempting to resolve disputes, whether hot like Ukraine or cold like trade and overcapacity," said Nick Snyder, a senior fellow at Hudson Institute, adding that Trump also worked to settle conflicts between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo and Thailand and Cambodia.
Trump has upended traditional diplomatic norms of peacemaking, relying on leveraging America's economic and military might including with U.S. allies, but that unorthodox style has yielded mixed results.
He brought parties to the table with the aim of ending Russia's invasion of Ukraine, but the longest war in Europe since World War Two is nowhere near ending, with the latest Russian airstrikes killing 16 people in the Ukrainian capital on Thursday.
In Gaza, mediators fear that intensifying Israeli strikes on the enclave undermine efforts to end the conflict as both Israel and Hamas balk at conditions needed to advance a peace plan Trump forged in October last year. In Lebanon, Israeli airstrikes killed 11 people on Sunday even as a U.S.-mediated peace framework between the two countries remains in effect.
One notable success came in Venezuela, where the U.S. military captured President Nicolas Maduro without U.S. casualties. Analysts say the operation helped convince Trump that joining Israel in attacking Iran would also proceed smoothly.
But they also say that proved a miscalculation. They argue Trump has relied too heavily on applying coercive pressure even though Iran's leaders have little incentive to back down and reopen the Strait of Hormuz despite the country's weakening economy.
"He is obsessed with applying coercion, and sometimes flattery, to bend others to his will, but oblivious to their strategic goals and domestic politics. As a result, he keeps flailing and failing," said Stephen Wertheim, a senior fellow at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
Meanwhile, the political clock is ticking, with Trump's Republican Party facing elections that could cost it control of one or both chambers of Congress and sharply curtail his ability to advance his agenda during his final two years in office.
Analysts say Trump's reliance on coercive pressure can bring adversaries to the table but often fails to produce lasting settlements, a dynamic that may encourage rivals to wait him out.
"U.S. adversaries understand that his political clock is shorter than theirs, and that while the United States can apply enormous coercive pressure, it may eventually lose patience," Aydintasbas said.
"Putin, Xi and Iran may therefore want to wait out Washington. After November, the incentive to wait out Trump will become even more pronounced."
(Reporting by Humeyra Pamuk, Andrea Shalal and Steve Holland; Editing by Don Durfee and Howard Goller)
Facts Only
* President Donald Trump heads into the midterm elections.
* The Iran war is currently a costly standoff.
* Crises from Ukraine and Gaza remain unresolved.
* Trump called off talks with Tehran after pushing for diplomatic solutions.
* Trump announced a new campaign of "economic warfare" against the Islamic Republic.
* Approval rating has fallen, with 33% of Americans approving of his performance in a recent poll.
* Jared Kushner left empty-handed from talks to advance a Gaza peace deal.
* A visit by Kushner and envoy Steve Witkoff to Kyiv to revive negotiations on the Ukraine war has not yet happened.
* The U.S. military captured Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro without U.S. casualties.
* U.S. sanctions and a naval blockade are claimed to have crippled Iran's economy.
Executive Summary
President Trump's foreign policy agenda appears stalled as he approaches the midterm elections, despite his prior promises to be a "peacemaker." Unresolved international crises, including the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, alongside the ongoing Iran war, have created setbacks for his diplomatic goals. Efforts to broker peace have been hampered; negotiations for a Gaza deal by Jared Kushner and others remain incomplete, and planned talks to end the war in Ukraine have not occurred.
The conflict with Iran has resulted in Trump halting talks with Tehran and initiating a campaign of "economic warfare." Concurrently, domestic economic pressures, such as inflation, have led to a decline in his approval rating. While officials claim success in ending some wars and achieving specific goals regarding Iran's nuclear program, analysts suggest that diplomatic disruption has not translated into tangible outcomes for the American public.
Experts suggest Trump’s approach of leveraging military and economic might has yielded mixed results. While he successfully disrupted established foreign policy consensus, this style of action appears less effective at securing lasting settlements with adversaries like Iran than anticipated. The ongoing geopolitical situation suggests that other actors may be content to wait out U.S. pressure rather than engage in concessions.
Full Take
The narrative presented juxtaposes an assertion of successful disruption against a reality of stalled deliverables, suggesting a fundamental disconnect between coercive foreign policy tactics and desired strategic outcomes. The central pattern involves the shift from conventional peacemaking to leveraging overwhelming force—economic pressure and military threat—to achieve goals. This method generated short-term achievements, such as the capture of Maduro and the halt of nuclear proliferation concerns, yet it ultimately failed to secure broad international consensus or lasting settlements, as evidenced by the ongoing instability in Ukraine and Gaza.
The implication is that the success of coercion relies on the adversary's internal calculus, which appears resistant to external pressure when domestic incentives are sufficiently strong. The fear articulated among observers is that adversaries, such as Russia, China, and Iran, may view the U.S.’s political timeline as a finite resource, incentivizing patience over immediate capitulation. This dynamic suggests that the effectiveness of coercive strategy is contingent upon the perceived strategic calculus of the targeted actors rather than simply the application of force.
What assumptions are being made about the utility of transactional diplomacy versus power politics? If adversaries are willing to wait out U.S. pressure, it challenges the assumption that domestic political shifts or external coercion alone can dictate global conflict resolution. Furthermore, how does the perception of achieving specific, measurable ends (like stopping a nuclear program) interact with the failure to achieve broader, ambiguous goals (like ending a war)? Does focusing on successful isolated outcomes obscure the systemic difficulty in managing interconnected, long-term conflicts?