THE TRUMP CAT

There's little to do, Trump is definitely a short-term strategist - which is to say he's not a strategist at all...

There are many ways to conduct a negotiation, and obviously some of these can be questionable in and of themselves; a rough, almost stinging approach can be annoying, as can threatening tones, but then, in the end, what really matters is whether you bring home the result or not. And to obtain a positive result there are some fundamental things, which are impossible to ignore. First of all, you need to know exactly what your objectives are - and obviously you need to have an idea of ​​how to achieve them. Not an abstract self-referential idea, but a concrete one, which takes into account all the elements in play. And then, secondly, it is essential to know the other party - what their interests are, what their objectives are, what their way of thinking is. If one of these elements is missing, or if the subjective ones largely prevail over all the others, it will be very difficult to obtain results. If I were Trump, I would ask Lavrov for some advice, someone who would have a lot to teach him…

The way he is moving, with respect to the Middle Eastern question, shows that he really doesn't know how to deal with it. Because, most likely, he has objectives but no strategy, and so he proceeds by trial and error: he makes a move, waits to see what happens, and then decides on the next move. In short, he improvises. And this is a terrible modus operandi, in diplomacy, because tactical flexibility is fine, but only if - precisely - it is firmly anchored to a precise strategy.

His approach to an extremely complex issue in itself, and which at this stage is made even more complicated by various contingent factors, has been substantially characterized by an objective (to end the war) and, more generally, to lay the foundations for the relaunch of a strategy based on business - which is the core of the Abraham Accords. Of course, establishing mutually beneficial trade relations (in this case between Israel and Arab countries) is always a good thing, because this establishes common interests. But, in the Middle East specifically, there are also elements that are not merely utilitarian, and on more than one side; ignoring it, negatively preconditions subsequent developments.

So at first, playing as is his character also on the disorientation of the counterparts, he managed to bring home a ceasefire agreement. An agreement that foresaw two phases, the second of which was predictably more difficult for Israel. But, having reached the point of passing from the first to the second phase, the mechanism jammed - predictably - without having foreseen the moves to be implemented in this eventuality.

Already at the end of the first phase it had clearly emerged that Netanyahu and his government majority were suffering, and would try to force their hand. Nevertheless, he was given a free hand, supporting his increasing violations of the agreements signed, in the belief that the Palestinian Resistance would give in anyway. Which, probably, was made to believe by Netanyahu himself, but it seems clear that even from his entourage he is receiving information that is at the very least imprecise. In fact, it is enough to look at the Pentagon plan, just leaked, regarding a possible conflict with Iran, to understand that even in Washington they do not have much of a handle on the situation. The result, however, was, as was predictable, that he then found himself attached to the Israeli wagon more than he wanted, ending up being dragged along by it. Despite all the evidence - the Israeli press itself, as well as many members of the intelligence and military community, recognize that Hamas has faithfully adhered to the agreements, and that these were instead intentionally sabotaged by Netanyahu - he has decided to embrace the official Israeli thesis, namely that it is the Resistance that is violating the terms of the ceasefire, and that therefore Tel Aviv's reaction is fully justified. Without evidently realizing that Netanyahu is substantially sabotaging not only the ceasefire, but Trump's very 'strategic' plan.

The result is that today it is no longer Trump (nor Witkoff) who is leading the game, but the Israeli Prime Minister. And the United States can do nothing but follow him, like a pack animal.

He is making a very similar mistake with Iran, from which he would like to obtain too much (not only the renunciation of nuclear power, but also of hypersonic missiles, and of the relationship with the Axis of Resistance groups), having very little to offer, and not taking into account determining factors such as his personal image which appears unreliable in Tehran (he was the one who unilaterally left the JCPOA, accusing Iran of violating the agreements when even the IAEA denied it), and obviously the fact that the Islamic Republic would never accept being downgraded to a subordinate role. Thus, accentuating the threatening pressures - also through the attack on the Yemenis, who are among the most independent from Tehran - is proving to be a huge miscalculation, which risks dragging the US into a conflict that is difficult to manage, and potentially explosive on a much larger scale than the United States can handle. If they were to come to a clash with Tehran, it is unthinkable that this would not be reflected in relations with Russia - which is a strategic ally of Iran - and China, for which the Persian Gulf is a very important route.

To further complicate a decidedly botched action, there is the obvious need of the American administration - after so much thundering left and right - to quickly bring home some success. And haste hardly helps, when it comes to unraveling such tangled skeins. As we know, a hasty cat gave birth to blind kittens.