The Trump Administration’s Geopolitical Blind Spot

The Trump administration’s strategic thinking is rudimentary at best and slanted at worst.

The hard-working staff here at Drezner’s World has already noted the absence of strategy in the Trump administration’s prosecution of its war with Iran. As the bombing continues, however, the administration is revealing additional strategic blind spots in some peculiar ways.

Take, for example, this Politico story from the first day of the war, in which a barely-disguised Steve Witkoff1 provided this odd aside in his explanation for why negotiations did not work with Iran:

“The read is simple: [Trump] very much optimized for a deal,” the official said. “There was no true counterparty in the end. This is the way we have executed this from the start. In [Russian President Vladimir] Putin, for example, there is a willing counterparty, albeit tough, but at the table.”

“Here, when it’s literal religion, it becomes a fool’s errand at a point to keep trying to find a compromise,” the official added.

A sincere question: what evidence, if any, is there that Putin actually is a willing counterparty?! To be sure, the Russian president has met with Witkoff and with Trump, but meeting and demonstrating a willingness to negotiate are rather different things. In what way has he demonstrated any willingness to compromise on Ukraine?! Is Putin’s determination to absorb Ukraine any less zealous and uncompromising than the mullahs in Iran?

Even as Trump has authorized military operations in Iran and Ecuador in the past week alone, he continues to rail about Ukraine’s reluctance to cut a peace deal with Russia. He said as much to Politico’s Dasha Burns:

Even as Iran remains a top focus, Trump said negotiations over the war in Ukraine continue. And he again expressed frustration with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy.

“Zelenksyy he has to get on the ball, and he has to get a deal done,” Trump said.

On the other hand, Trump said he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin is prepared to negotiate an end to the war.

“I think Putin is ready to make a deal,” he said. Trump has said that before.

When pressed on what Zelenskyy’s obstacle is to a peace deal, Trump declined to elaborate but maintained that Ukraine’s leader is not showing enough willingness to negotiate.

“It’s unthinkable that he’s the obstacle,” Trump said. “You don’t have the cards. Now he’s got even less cards.”

So both Trump and his chief negotiator view Putin as a reliable counterparty who is interested in negotiating a peace deal; they further wish that Ukraine would agree to an end to that war in short order.

Here is what’s so strange about this belief: it seems not to have occurred to either Trump or his staffers that Ukraine’s willingness to fight Russia has kept that country tied down in Ukraine. Putin’s primary focus for the past few years has been trying to defeat Ukraine. That, in turn, has been a strategic windfall for his administration . Russia’s obsession with Ukraine — and the men and materiel that have been devoted to that war — has allowed Trump to take far more aggressive action against Russian-friendly states than would otherwise have been the case.

The New York Times’ Ben Hubbard, for example, points out limited support Russia has provided Iran, explaining that its response has been limited, “to standing up for Iran at the United Nations and in other international forums.” One expert acknowledged to Hubbard, “that does not do much for Iran in this situation.”

Politico’s Eva Hartog has more on this point:

As Tehran was being pounded by U.S. and Israeli bombs on Saturday morning, its top diplomat dialed Moscow’s number.

On the other end of the line, according to an official Russian statement, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov offered his Iranian counterpart sympathy and promised his — verbal — support.

Iran, thus, became the latest country after Syria and Venezuela to feel firsthand what partnership with Russia does, and doesn’t, mean.

Since launching its full-scale war in Ukraine four years ago, the Kremlin has flexed its rhetorical muscle as the flag bearer of a so-called multipolar world. But, at decisive moments, its response on the ground in allied nations has been conspicuously anemic as their leaders came under attack….

For Tehran, Moscow’s lackluster response should come as no surprise.

The writing has been on the wall since at least last summer, when — during a 12-day war with Israel that included a massive U.S. assault on Iranian nuclear sites — top Russian officials similarly offered statements of condemnation but no action.

To be fair, Al Jazeera’s Nils Adler quotes Andrey Kortunov, the former director general of the Russian International Affairs Council, as explaining Russia’s inaction as a product not of the war itself, but rather Trump’s mediation efforts in Ukraine:

“Moscow appears to be “prioritising the United States mediation in the conflict with Ukraine”, and noted that Russia has previously taken a similar approach by criticising US actions in places like Venezuela after the US military attack and arrest of its President, Nicolas Maduro, in January.

It is also the case that a long, drawn-out conflict serves Russia’s interests; raising energy prices tends to benefit those able to export hydrocarbons.

These latter explanations could allow for more nuanced thinking about the Iran-Russia relationship. Still, as the New York Times’ Paul Sonne reports, the fundamental story is that Russia’s limited ability to support its partners has enabled the Trump administration’s coercive actions:

For years, Mr. Putin supported anti-American authoritarian governments in Iran, Venezuela and Cuba, with little worry that Washington would use its overwhelming military power to kill, capture or push out their leaders. That has now changed, as Mr. Trump has demonstrated a willingness to disregard international norms and engage in foreign adventurism by fully exploiting Washington’s might….

Even though Iran came to Russia’s aid with critical drones at the outset of Mr. Putin’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago, Russia has stood aside as the United States and Israel have pummeled Iran’s leadership and military. Moscow has issued little more than condemnatory statements that largely avoid naming Mr. Trump….

The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, declined Friday to say how Moscow was helping Iran in its moment of need. A day earlier he said, “The war that’s going on isn’t our war.”

Washington’s actions against Russia-friendly leaders have come at a head-spinning pace.

The last two months have brought the U.S.-Israeli killing of Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei; the U.S. capture of President Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela; and a U.S. economic blockade intended to oust the Cuban president, Miguel Díaz-Canel. In every case, Russia has offered little visible help….

The reality is that there is not much that Russia, already tied down in Ukraine, could have done to protect Iran, short of declaring war on the United States or Israel, said Alexander Gabuev, director of the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, a research institute in Berlin.

Russia’s preoccupation with Ukraine and the ongoing conflict there has limited its ability to support its more distant allies and partners. That has led to reverses in its interests in Syria, Venezuela, and now Iran. And the Trump administration seems unable to comprehend that basic fact despite the fact that it has benefitted tremendously from Russia’s decline.