US President Donald Trump appears to be succeeding in coercing allies, partners and adversaries alike to rethink their traditional policies and comply with his administration over thorny issues.
Russia and the US have agreed for their two leaders to meet next week – a move seen by Mr Trump’s team as payoff for its sanctions threat if Moscow doesn’t comply with its deadline to cease military operations against Ukraine. A US partner, India, is in a dilemma after Mr Trump announced plans to double tariffs on Indian exports to the US to 50 per cent if New Delhi continues to purchase Russian oil, despite western sanctions imposed on Moscow over its war in Ukraine.
Brazil has also faced its share of weaponised US tariffs after Mr Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro – a Trump ally who is accused of orchestrating a failed coup against the current establishment in Brasilia. Meanwhile, Iran is preparing for possible US sanctions aimed at encircling it with measures targeting China, and most likely, renewed military action to thwart any attempts to revive its nuclear programme.
So the question now is: who has adapted to Mr Trump’s threats, who has defied them, and who has buried its head in the sand?
Even as Mr Trump is scheduled to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, the two countries’ stands on Ukraine remain far apart. At best, an agreement could be reached to cease military operations and initiate peace talks between Moscow and Kyiv.
The sanctions Mr Trump has threatened to impose on Russia – failing to agree to a ceasefire – could be far-reaching, perhaps amounting to a financial blockade. Oil sanctions have a significant impact on Russia, yet imposing sanctions on banks dealing with the country would mean that these banks will no longer be able to pay Moscow its oil revenues. This may have contributed to Russia reconsidering its position.
India receives about 40 per cent of its oil imports from Russia, and along with China, the two Asian countries account for about 80 per cent of Russian oil exports. While China may find ways to circumvent US financial sanctions to continue purchasing Russian oil, India has begun to consider the possibility of halting or reducing oil imports from Russia.
This would be a blow to the Russian economy, particularly since oil exports have dropped since the start of the year. India won’t be able to replace its Russian oil imports with Iranian oil, since Tehran is also under western sanctions. Hence, the most probable alternative source will be the Gulf states.
Imposing a 50 per cent tariff on all Indian exports to the US, on par with Chinese goods, means that Mr Trump makes few distinctions between friends and foes when it comes to his policies.
The new tariffs on goods from dozens of countries came into effect on Thursday, signalling the US President’s resolve to reshape global trade. Washington’s position is that trade exchanges between the US and other countries have been unfair and needed rebalancing, and it’s in no mood to compromise with other countries.
Like with Russia, the US President has been inclined to turn the screws on Iran, too. He has given Tehran a deadline until the end of August to agree to a new nuclear deal with Washington. Bear in mind that Iran’s leaders have categorically refused to compromise on their doctrine of projecting power using nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and armed proxies.
Iran has doubled down on its support for Hezbollah’s right to retain arms in Lebanon. So far, the Trump administration hasn’t imposed sanctions on Tehran for its intervention in sovereign countries; the latter’s regional behaviour has so far remained outside the scope of the talks between Washington and Tehran.
But this could change soon, not only because Iran is exposing itself by preventing Beirut from reclaiming its sovereignty, but also because it has been using its regional cards – including Hezbollah’s influence in Lebanon – as bargaining chips in its negotiations with the US.
However, the Lebanese Cabinet’s recent decision to disarm Hezbollah was bold, pioneering and wise. In doing so, President Joseph Aoun, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, and perhaps to some extent Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, may have taken a decisive step towards reclaiming the state’s sovereignty.
This could explain why Israel hasn’t gone all out in its most recent assault on Hezbollah. It might limit its actions to targeting the group’s leadership and structure – if the latter continues to refuse to hand over its weapons to the state – rather than waging an all-out war spreading across Lebanon.
Circling back to the Trump tariffs, it is noteworthy that the one country the US President hasn’t issued punitive measures against is Israel, despite his periodic statements seeking an end to the war in Gaza.
The tragedy of Gaza is that it has been a victim of players who view it through veils that obscure the full picture. Mr Trump does disservice to his own legacy when he pretends that merely providing food after Israel has used starvation as a weapon against innocents is sufficient. He does disservice to his own vision for securing a Middle Eastern “Deal of the Century” through his blind allegiance to Israel’s rejection of a Palestinian state.
For its part, the Israeli government appears to no longer care about the remaining hostages in Hamas’s custody. It seems ready to withdraw this leverage from the group at any cost, with new measures – including, perhaps, a reoccupation of Gaza.
Mr Trump still views Israel’s actions as a response to the horrific Hamas-led assault on October 7, 2023. He is, therefore, unlikely to ever impose sanctions on, or seek accountability from, Israel – no matter what crimes it commits in Gaza.
