(MENAFN- The Arabian Post)

Donald Trump is poised to repeat a pattern of missteps that have troubled his foreign policy approach throughout his presidency. His handling of international relations often seems to confuse the appropriate balance between clarity and ambiguity, with significant consequences for both the United States and its global partners. This issue will come into sharp focus during his upcoming meeting with Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the White House, where Trump is expected to clarify a relationship that arguably benefits from remaining ambiguous.

The US-Saudi partnership, built on strategic and economic interests, is one of the most complex in American foreign policy. Historically, the relationship has been characterized by a delicate balance of mutual benefit, yet it has also been the subject of considerable controversy. Trump's push to clearly define this alliance-especially as he meets with the Crown Prince-runs the risk of disrupting the fluidity that has allowed both nations to engage in trade and diplomacy without getting bogged down by the details. The Crown Prince, embroiled in human rights concerns following the assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, remains a controversial figure in global politics. Trump's tendency to eschew diplomatic niceties in favour of personal rapport could further complicate the situation. While the US seeks to maintain its strategic ties with Saudi Arabia, it would benefit more from keeping the terms of the relationship less defined and more flexible, thus avoiding the geopolitical fallout that comes with drawing sharp lines.

Trump's actions in this instance highlight a broader flaw in his foreign policy approach: the frequent use of clarity where ambiguity would serve better, and the introduction of confusion where clear messages are necessary. His dealings with NATO, South Korea, and Japan exemplify this troubling trend. In his tenure, Trump has often used ambiguity to sow uncertainty in these vital alliances, leaving the future of military commitments and defence agreements in limbo. This uncertainty, however, has not yielded the intended results. Instead, it has strained trust between the US and its allies, leading to discord within the international community.

See also Trump Says Modi Promised End to Russian Oil Imports

The NATO alliance has borne the brunt of Trump's unpredictable messaging. By questioning the value of the alliance and repeatedly criticising European members for not meeting defence spending targets, Trump has inadvertently weakened a critical pillar of Western security. His insistence on a more transactional approach to NATO, while understandable from a cost-benefit perspective, has alienated key partners. Rather than strengthening NATO's deterrence against Russian aggression, his remarks have undermined cohesion within the organisation. In contrast, a clear reaffirmation of NATO's importance to US security interests would have reassured allies and demonstrated a commitment to collective defence.

Similarly, Trump's policy towards South Korea and Japan has been marked by frequent uncertainty, particularly over military spending and defence agreements. In both cases, the US president has vacillated between pressuring allies to increase their financial contributions and offering personal reassurances to the leaders of both nations. This duality has not only created confusion but also raised questions about America's long-term commitment to its security obligations in the Pacific. Ambiguity in these regions, where security threats from North Korea and China are persistent, could lead to destabilisation if allies are unsure about the reliability of American support.

Perhaps the most glaring example of Trump's mishandling of clarity and ambiguity, however, lies in his response to international conflicts. Whether it's the US's relationship with Iran, the ongoing trade war with China, or the shifting alliances in the Middle East, Trump has often wavered between conflicting messages. On one hand, his administration has taken a hardline stance, calling for clear-cut policies, such as the“maximum pressure” campaign on Iran. On the other hand, his willingness to engage in direct talks with adversaries-without clear preconditions-has injected unnecessary uncertainty into crucial negotiations.

See also MiCA Regulation May Be Creating a Stablecoin Vulnerability

Notice an issue? Arabian Post strives to deliver the most accurate and reliable information to its readers. If you believe you have identified an error or inconsistency in this article, please don't hesitate to contact our editorial team at editor[at]thearabianpost[dot]com. We are committed to promptly addressing any concerns and ensuring the highest level of journalistic integrity.

MENAFN18112025000152002308ID1110359310