“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” This quote, attributed to Vladimir Lenin, aptly describes the whirlwind of diplomatic activity surrounding US President Donald Trump this week.
The president, who champions an “America First” policy, has been remarkably active on the global stage.
Recent days have witnessed a flurry of activity: business deals in the Gulf; the lifting of Syrian sanctions; negotiation of a US citizen’s release from Hamas; an end to Yemen military strikes; reduced tariffs on Chinese goods; the urging of Ukraine-Russia talks in Turkey; continued Iran nuclear deal negotiations; and even a claimed role in brokering an India-Pakistan ceasefire.
This breakneck pace has left both allies and adversaries struggling to keep up.
“Just, wow!” remarked a London-based ambassador. “It’s nearly impossible to track everything.”
What, then, is the significance of this frenetic week? What insights does it offer into the President’s evolving foreign policy? Is a discernible “Trump Doctrine” emerging, or is this merely a confluence of global events?
A starting point is the President’s Gulf visit, where he articulated a vision of international relations prioritizing trade over conflict. In a Riyadh speech, Trump advocated for “commerce, not chaos” in the Middle East, a region that should “export technology, not terrorism.”
His vision emphasizes pragmatic mercantilism, where mutually beneficial deals foster peace through profit.
Amidst the praise from Saudi hosts and visiting dignitaries, the President signed agreements the White House valued at $600 billion in US investment.
This showcased Trump at his most flamboyant, securing immediate wins to promote job creation at home.
While some diplomats privately questioned the value of the memorandums of understanding, they acknowledged the showmanship’s importance.
Trump’s speech notably omitted any mention of collective action, multilateral cooperation on climate change, or concerns about democratic or human rights. Ideology and values were largely dismissed.
He directly criticized past Western interventionism, condemning “so-called nation-builders and neo-cons” for lecturing other nations on governance.
To the applause of his Arab audience, he stated that these “Western interventionists” had “wrecked more nations than they built,” adding: “Far too many American presidents have been afflicted with the notion that it’s our job to look into the souls of foreign leaders and use US policy to dispense justice for their sins. My job is to defend America.”
This reluctance to intervene was evident in the India-Pakistan conflict. While the US traditionally plays a key mediating role, the Trump administration initially hesitated.
Vice President JD Vance stated on Fox News that the conflict was “fundamentally none of our business… We can’t control these countries”.
Ultimately, both he and Secretary of State Marco Rubio engaged diplomatically, pressuring de-escalation. Other nations also played a part.
Following the ceasefire, Trump claimed credit, a claim Indian diplomats flatly rejected, asserting it was a bilateral truce.
Trump’s centrality to US foreign policy is undeniable. His actions highlighted the limited involvement of other government branches traditionally involved in shaping overseas policy.
The decision to meet Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, and lift sanctions exemplifies the potential advantages of centralized foreign policy decision-making: a bold and decisive step, driven by the President himself after lobbying from Turkey and Saudi Arabia.
This surprised many in the region and within the US government. The State Department reportedly favored retaining leverage through sanctions, expressing concerns about minority protection and foreign fighters.
Diplomats suggest this pattern of impulsive, internally unvetted decision-making is common, with mixed results.
Trump’s inconsistency contributes to this. His decision to reduce tariffs on Chinese goods contrasts sharply with his earlier aggressive stance and threats of retaliation. The subsequent reduction of tariffs to 30% in Geneva illustrates a familiar pattern: maximalist demands, threats, negotiation, concessions, and declaration of victory.
This “art of the deal” strategy, however, may be less effective for complex, long-term issues such as war.
His Ukraine policy exemplifies this fluidity. While initially supporting a 30-day ceasefire alongside European leaders, he swiftly endorsed direct Ukraine-Russia talks in Turkey, contradicting his previous stance.
He later suggested a personal meeting with Putin as a precondition for a deal.
This inconsistency leaves some diplomats questioning his intentions: “Does he genuinely not know what he wants to do about the war in Ukraine? Or does he just grasp at what might offer the quickest resolution possible?”
Two further decisions this week are noteworthy. First, a ceasefire in Yemen, following months of costly air strikes. Second, ongoing talks with Iran regarding their nuclear program, with hints of a possible (though possibly modest) agreement, reducing the likelihood of joint US-Israeli military action.
Both actions contradict Israeli preferences. Despite Benjamin Netanyahu’s early prominence in the Trump administration, he appears sidelined. Trump’s Middle East tour omitted Israel, sanctions on Syria were lifted without Israeli support, and the Houthi ceasefire came after a Tel Aviv airport attack.
Diplomats express concern over Netanyahu’s potential response, fearing a possible escalation in Gaza.
Ultimately, this week’s diplomatic flurry produced arguably less change than it initially appeared. Despite the Middle East tour’s fanfare, the Gaza conflict persists, a fresh Israeli offensive looms, and normalization of Israeli-Saudi relations remains distant.
While Ukraine talks are ongoing, a resolution is far from certain, and Putin’s ambitions remain unclear. Tariff reductions with the UK and China have yet to alleviate significant global market instability.
Trump’s global ideology has become clearer: a mercantilist approach that optimistically prioritizes capitalism over conflict. His haste to resolve issues in the Middle East, Ukraine, and the subcontinent is also evident, presumably to focus on China.
However, this ambition may prove elusive. Just as weeks can see decades unfold, so too can weeks pass with minimal lasting impact.
Top picture credit: Getty Images
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, offering fresh perspectives, challenging assumptions, and in-depth reporting on major global issues. We also showcase thought-provoking content from BBC Sounds and iPlayer. Feedback is welcome.