PNN – An American publication wrote that Donald Trump’s instinct-based decision-making style has failed in Iran.
According to the report of Pakistan News Network, Ivo Dolder, former US ambassador to NATO, wrote in an analysis for the Politico magazine that Trump’s policymaking style is based on instinct and instant decision-making, and wrote that this time his style has failed against Iran.
According to Dolder, Trump does not go into detail in his decisions on war and diplomacy, just like decisions in the business world, and does not trust the policy-making process, in-depth analysis, and consultation with experts.
He is a leader who goes by his “gut feeling,” and he himself has said: My gut feeling sometimes tells me more than what other people’s brains can tell me.
According to Politico, until Iran, Trump had been able to get by on instinct. His military strikes have already achieved results in Venezuela, for example.
He also claims to have ended eight wars, although according to Dolder, most of those wars were either on the verge of ending or—like the Congo War—never really ended. Among these eight wars, ironically, is the war between Israel and Iran.
Instinct’s defeat against Iran
The author emphasizes that in Iran, Trump’s instincts have failed him for the first time, as four weeks of bombing have not produced a rapid change in Iran’s regime or behavior.
Instead, Tehran has turned the tables, imposing increasing costs on the region and the world, by targeting U.S. bases in the Persian Gulf and closing the Strait of Hormuz, Politico reports.
Dolder writes that Iran has finally become an enemy of Trump, unwilling to yield to his whims even after bombing 10,000 targets.
For many, including the three presidents before Trump, this outcome was entirely predictable, writes Politico analyst. That is why George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Joe Biden all preferred diplomacy to war during their time.
But Trump has not engaged in the details and analysis that have dissuaded previous presidents from bombing Iran despite Israeli pressure.
His desperate attempts to force a deal by claiming that Tehran is “begging to negotiate” and his repeated extensions of deadlines for threatening to bomb the plants are signs that he knows he is caught between two bad choices: either escalate the conflict by sending in ground troops (which would be very unpleasant), or accept a deal that he could probably have achieved without war.
Problems in diplomacy: Friends and grooms instead of diplomats
In another part of his analysis, Dolder addresses the problems of American diplomacy, writing that instead of relying on diplomats with the necessary skills and background to negotiate with the Iranian side, Trump has relied on his friends and family members who do not have the necessary experience and knowledge.
Trump has assigned his son-in-law Jared Kushner and his friend Steve Whittaker, the special envoy to the Middle East, to diplomacy, given their experience in the field of negotiation, but according to Dolder, the skills in these two areas are very different and are not easily transferable.
The difference between negotiation and diplomacy
The author explains that in the private sector, negotiators agree on the main points of a deal and leave the details to lawyers. But in diplomacy, strategic and historical context matter, as does understanding what motivates the other side — which is fundamentally different from simply making money.
Dolder writes that this can be seen in the approach of Witkoff and Kushner: They put a term sheet (or a multi-item plan) on the table — 28 terms for Ukraine, 20 for Gaza, 15 for Iran — and then try to bully the other side into accepting it.
While these materials are often vague, open to multiple interpretations, and almost always detached from the context of the conflict they are intended to resolve.
Failure in Ukraine and Gaza: A Repeating Pattern
The basic idea is that if one side “holds the cards,” the other side must surrender, according to Politico. But that’s not how diplomacy works.
Dolder points to the example of Ukraine: The original 28-point deal was drafted largely by Russia, which Kyiv vehemently rejected. Then a new 19-point deal was drawn up with Ukraine, which Moscow predictably rejected. Today, the talks that were supposed to end the war in one day have stalled, and the conflict is now in its fifth year.
In Gaza, the author writes, a ceasefire was finally established and all prisoners were released. However, peace is still not established. The Gaza Strip is divided into two parts, with Israel controlling one side and Hamas controlling the other. Hamas has not been demilitarized, and Israel violates the ceasefire almost daily.
Iran’s 15-point plan: a list of maximum demands
The author writes that the prospects for reaching a peace agreement with Iran in the near future are no better.
The much-discussed 15-point plan is a list of maximum demands that Iran has consistently rejected.
Iran’s bitter experience with Trump: A major obstacle to an agreement
According to Politico, even if the bombing campaign ultimately convinces Tehran’s powerful to negotiate an end to the war, their country’s experience with the Trump administration will make any agreement very difficult to reach.
Most importantly, this is the same president who pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, to which Iran had adhered. Moreover, Tehran agreed to indirect talks twice after Trump returned to power, and both times those talks were interrupted by Israeli and American bombing of the country and its leaders.
In a key part of his analysis, the author reveals that before the war began, Iran had engaged in serious discussions to limit its nuclear program. But it seems that Whittkoff and Kushner did not understand the concessions that Iran was apparently prepared to offer — including halting enrichment, reducing the purity of its materials, and possibly removing its stockpile of enriched uranium, among other things.
Dolder adds that Wittkoff also mistakenly assumed that Iran’s insistence on its inalienable right to enrich and possess 440 kilograms of uranium somehow indicated that Iran was not serious about an agreement.
Ivo Daalder concludes this analysis for Politico by saying that Trump is now caught in a situation of his own making. His instincts have failed him. His negotiators don’t know how to deal with a stubborn enemy who seeks to survive by inflicting maximum pain on others. And we are all paying the price for this failure.