President Trump is routinely described as impulsive. A Sun Tzu yardstick points to something more structured: leverage as doctrine. His method is to identify dependencies, heighten uncertainty, and compel counterparts — adversaries and allies alike — to bargain on terms he chooses. The strategic question is whether this converts pressure into durable outcomes or merely produces motion without settlement.
Sun Tzu’s foundational maxim — know the enemy; know yourself; in a hundred battles you will never be in peril — is where Trump both excels and falters. He is unusually alert to vulnerabilities: chokepoints, cost asymmetries, and domestic political constraints. Yet he often risks substituting performance for intelligence — mistaking loud signals for reliable information, and short-term concessions for stable alignment.
For example, Trump’s “Project Vault” and the push for a critical minerals club are a textbook attempt to reshape the terrain rather than charge the fortress. The aim is to reduce exposure to China’s dominance in processing and export leverage by using coordinated trade rules, price floors, and stockpiling to pull investment toward allied supply chains.
Measured against Sun Tzu, this is coherent: it targets structural advantage, uses market gravity as power, and seeks a form of victory without direct confrontation. The vulnerability is political, not technical: such arrangements require allies to view Washington as a predictable convenor. If the organising principle becomes transactional pressure, partners may comply tactically while hedging strategically — diluting the coalition strength the plan depends on.
A second example is Trump’s Gaza initiative, presented as a comprehensive plan and linked to international endorsement, it can be read as an effort to replace attrition with managed bargaining: win without fighting by institutionalising incentives, sequencing commitments, and distributing burdens.
But Gaza is not simply a security file. It is a legitimacy crisis shaped by occupation, displacement, and competing claims to land, rights, and recognition. Any plan that treats Palestinian political agency as a secondary variable — something to be “handled” after calm is restored — risks producing administrative stability without political justice. In Sun Tzu terms, that is a tactical pause, not a strategic resolution.
The durability test is straightforward: does the proposal reduce harm to civilians, create enforceable constraints on all armed actors, and open a credible pathway for Palestinian self-determination and governance legitimacy — not merely “order”? Recent volatility around ceasefire arrangements is a reminder that, absent credible political horizons and symmetric enforcement, “stability” is inherently temporary.
Iran is where Trump’s leverage doctrine is most explicit. The administration publicly frames its posture as “maximum pressure,” combining sanctions escalation with deterrent signalling.
Yet the re-opening of US–Iran nuclear talks in Muscat shows the other half of the method: pressure as the preface to bargaining, not a substitute for it. Iran, for its part, is signalling strict compartmentalisation (nuclear only), while resisting expansion into missiles, regional posture, or internal governance.
Applying Sun Tzu’s logic: Trump is attempting to set timing and terms — tighten the vice, then offer an off-ramp that secures a visible concession. The risk is strategic overreach. If Washington’s demands are perceived as humiliation or regime-change by another name, Tehran’s incentive shifts toward endurance, proliferation hedges, and asymmetric retaliation. The future relationship will therefore likely oscillate between coercion and narrowly scoped transactional diplomacy — progress is possible on technical nuclear constraints, but the relationship remains structurally fragile unless both sides can define an exchange that saves face and stabilises expectations.
Across these theatres, Trump’s approach is recognisably Sun Tzu: shape the environment, weaponise time, and compel movement through leverage. It can work — especially where dependencies are clear. But leverage is not settlement. Without disciplined coalition maintenance, credible enforcement symmetry, and a political end state that addresses core claims, bargaining becomes perpetual and “victory” indistinguishable from managing the next crisis.
Oman Observer is now on the WhatsApp channel. Click here
