Donald Trump’s return to the presidency in January 2025 has reignited debates about America’s role on the global stage. His foreign policy—still rooted in his "America First" mantra—is as much about bold moves as it is about unpredictability. As world leaders brace for sudden tweets and last-minute decisions, his recent actions in the Iran-Israel conflict and trade negotiations with Canada highlight both the potential and peril of such a style. But what happens when diplomacy becomes a performance? Can the world afford to be kept guessing?
In June 2025, tensions exploded in the Middle East when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump’s initial reluctance to engage directly, emphasizing his aversion to “forever wars,” gave way to a U.S. airstrike campaign days later. He publicly declared that the strikes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, yet intelligence reports painted a more modest picture: the attacks delayed Iran’s progress by only a few months. So, was the move a show of strength or a short-sighted gamble? Trump’s statements swung between threatening Iran’s leadership and calling for peace, leaving even his own officials scrambling to interpret his intentions. How can a global power maintain credibility if its messages shift by the day?
The temporary ceasefire that followed was abruptly announced—so abruptly, in fact, that it surprised parts of Trump’s own administration. Dubbed the “12 Day War,” it seemed less a diplomatic breakthrough and more a hasty pause in a fragile situation. Iran and Israel both claimed violations. Trump’s two-week ultimatum for Iran’s surrender or re-engagement seemed more like a campaign slogan than a coherent foreign policy. Could this inconsistency lead to dangerous miscalculations? Is the U.S. ready for the blowback if adversaries no longer take its red lines seriously?
At home, Trump’s moves triggered divisions—not just between parties, but within his own. While some Republicans welcomed a show of military strength, others—particularly isolationist voices in the MAGA camp—criticized the intervention. Democrats, meanwhile, called out Trump for bypassing Congress, accusing him of sidelining constitutional limits. Internationally, condemnation from countries like Qatar and concerns from European allies suggested growing unease. If trust in U.S. leadership wanes, who steps in to fill that void?
The trade front isn’t any calmer. Canada, historically a close partner, found itself in Trump’s crosshairs. During the G7 summit in Alberta, Trump used tariff threats as leverage in bilateral negotiations with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. While the talks yielded positive signs of a possible deal, the underlying tension revealed a troubling dynamic: the U.S. is willing to strain its oldest alliances to gain economic concessions. If allies become targets, what does partnership with the U.S. really mean?
Trump’s broader trade strategy, including softer stances toward China and deals with the UK, reflects his preference for one-on-one negotiations rather than multilateral cooperation. Yet this tactic leaves allies guessing—and adversaries maneuvering. China has used the opportunity to position itself as a mediator in the Middle East, while Russia quietly maintains its presence in Ukraine and regional affairs. Can America truly outplay its rivals if it pushes friends away?
What’s clear is that world leaders are adapting. Some, like Canada’s Carney or the UK’s Keir Starmer, engage pragmatically, extracting wins where possible. Others, like Iran and China, posture cautiously, calculating responses to a president who might change course overnight. The stakes are enormous. Missteps could trigger regional wars, economic upheaval, or long-term diplomatic fractures. At a time when global challenges demand stability, Trump’s high-stakes approach—equal parts bravado and improvisation—raises a critical question: is unpredictability a strength or a liability in world leadership?
Riya Goyal is a trainee journalist at Cult Current. The views expressed in the article are
her ownand do not necessarily reflect the official stance of Cult Current.