Negotiating or Bullying? Trump’s Strategy Before the Oman Talks
Trump’s approach to diplomacy often starts well before formal discussions. Drawing from the playbook outlined in The Art of the Deal, he emphasizes creating an atmosphere in which the opposing side feels intimidated and unprepared. According to Trump, effective negotiation relies on preemptive threats and psychological leverage rather than trust-building or rational dialogue.
Throughout his political career, Trump has applied this pattern repeatedly. Before meetings with North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, he warned of “fire and fury.” In dealings with China, tariffs were imposed in advance. And in previous rounds of talks with Iran, phrases like “all options on the table” and “maximum pressure” signaled that intimidation often precedes dialogue.
Ahead of the Oman negotiations, similar tactics are already visible. Trump and his aides have publicly discussed sanctions, pressures, and potential actions even before a formal agenda has been defined. The underlying aim appears less about achieving agreement and more about gaining a psychological upper hand.
Iran has experienced this strategy not only through rhetoric but also in practice. Earlier talks involving Iran’s Abbas Araghchi and Trump’s representative Steve Witkoff were abruptly interrupted by U.S. and Israeli military activity, underscoring Trump’s belief that negotiation and military pressure can operate simultaneously.
In Trump’s worldview, negotiations succeed when the other side retreats, not when both parties find a solution. He often frames agreements as failures unless they reinforce his image of dominance, explaining why he disparaged the JCPOA—not due to its content, but because he was not credited as the “winner.”
Ultimately, Trump’s negotiation style reflects a consistent philosophy: diplomacy is a tool for asserting power, shaping narratives, and destabilizing the confidence of counterparts before they even sit at the table.
