Diplomacy demands more than dealmaking

“Within an international system of sovereign states, agreements endure only when all parties believe they serve their interests.”

In "Years of Upheaval," former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, one of the foremost architects of realist diplomacy, used those words to capture the essence of statecraft. The success of diplomacy, he argued, depends not on how quickly an adversary can be forced to yield, but on how carefully an agreement is structured to endure. The dramatic breakthrough is seldom the most important part. What matters is what comes after. Whether a headline-grabbing moment fades into memory or develops into a lasting order ultimately hinges on the patient work of management, coordination and compromise.

U.S. President Donald Trump’s approach to diplomacy has often operated according to a different logic. Rather than concentrating on building arrangements designed to last, he has tended to focus on gaining early leverage, shifting momentum and forcing movement from the other side.

Whenever Trump has entered the arena of international affairs, he has done so with characteristic confidence. Even when confronting issues shaped by competing interests and decades of accumulated tensions, he has projected the belief that they can be resolved quickly through direct engagement and forceful leadership. Matters that traditional politicians might spend months, or even years, navigating have often become the focus of global attention within days of his involvement.

His campaign promise to end the war in Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office remains one of the clearest examples. Soon after returning to the White House, Trump engaged with both Russian and Ukrainian leaders, creating the impression that a settlement might be close at hand. Yet few today speak of an imminent end to the conflict. What remains are the same obstacles that have complicated negotiations from the outset: the conflicting strategic objectives of Russia and Ukraine, the interests of European nations and broader questions surrounding the future security order. The war, meanwhile, continues.

The Iran issue reflects a similar pattern. Through sustained military pressure, Trump succeeded to some extent in bringing Tehran back to the negotiating table. Yet the most difficult questions remain unresolved: sanctions relief, restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, the regional balance of power and the concerns of U.S. allies.

The North Korea-U.S. summits during Trump’s first term offer another example of diplomacy that generated historic images but failed to produce a lasting framework. The unprecedented sight of a sitting U.S. president meeting North Korea’s leader raised hopes that a new chapter might be opening on the Korean Peninsula. Ultimately, however, the process ended with the Hanoi summit and no agreement. Without a detailed roadmap for denuclearization and sanctions relief, and without the trust necessary to carry such a roadmap forward, a historic moment could not be transformed into a durable settlement.

Trump, a former real estate developer, has long portrayed himself as a master negotiator. Many observers would agree that he possesses a keen ability to maximize leverage, pressure counterparts and secure favorable terms. Diplomacy, however, is not a business transaction. A contract is largely complete once the signatures are in place. In diplomacy, that is when the real work begins.

International politics is not a winner-take-all game. The moment one side feels completely defeated, an agreement can become less stable rather than more secure. That is why diplomacy demands the painstaking work of refining details, the patience to manage competing interests and the political confidence to allow all sides to claim a measure of success. Trump has repeatedly demonstrated an instinct for launching negotiations and commanding attention. Whether he can sustain and manage the outcomes that follow remains an open question.

On Trump’s desk in the Oval Office sits a model of a B-2 bomber, the aircraft used in last year’s strikes on three Iranian nuclear facilities. It may serve as a reminder of a moment when a single military operation appeared to deliver a strategic advantage. What may prove more valuable now, however, is a diplomat’s well-worn notebook: a record of the painstaking effort required to untangle competing interests, keep rivals at the same table and ensure that agreements endure long after the spotlight has moved on.