The latest conflict was triggered by Trump's more and more aggressive remarks toward Oman, which is engaged in negotiations with Iran regarding business shipping through the Strait of Hormuz.
If the U.S. got in the way of the U.S. reaching an agreement with Iran, Trump threatened to attack Oman. The remarks were made at a time when Iran and Oman were working on their own chart of course of action for shipping through the crucial waterway.
The threat is particularly poignant given Oman's history of playing a significant diplomatic role between nations which can struggle to communicate directly.
Oman is not just a Middle Eastern government caught up in the dispute, but has been a venue for talks between Iran and Western governments.
The strait between Iran and Oman is a critical route for much of the world's energy trade. It has already played a part in driving up energy and transportation costs, putting a strain on economies not just in the Middle East.
Opening the strait is, thus, a cornerstone of the Trump administration's Iran policy.
But the diplomatic path to that end is becoming more complicated. Iran and Oman have been discussing a potential deal for commercial shipping, but Washington would like more than just that, as it also wants to have a deal with regard to Iran's nuclear program.
Trump's willingness to threaten Oman reveals a lot about how hard-pressed his administration will go. But also naturally, a question is raised in my mind as to whether threats to a potential mediator can make a complex negotiation easier?
Trump has also directed the Pentagon to cut back drastically on U.S. involvement in joint military drills with South Korea.
The annual Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises started Aug. 17 and are meant to boost the U.S. and South Korean forces' capacity to tackle North Korea threats. The exercises feature around 18,000 South Korean soldiers and feature training exercises for modern threats including cyberattacks and GPS interference as well as drones.
Trump blasts expenses of the drills and also mentions South Korea's hesitation to back U.S action against Iran.
His administration has also made Kim Jong Un's relationship with Trump a hallmark of why it should not be confrontational with Pyongyang.
Some might say that diminishing exercises could allow for diplomacy with North Korea. South Korea has even said that it hopes Trump's new strategy will bring a fresh dynamic to the dialogue with Pyongyang.
However, opponents argue that there may be a security issue.
Joint exercises are no longer just symbolic exercises. They assist the U.S. and South Korean troops in coordination and readiness for possible conflict.
Their reduction would then impact military readiness and the coordination of alliances, especially as North Korea still continues to advance its military, and its relations with Russia.
Hence, the decision has brought some U.S. and South Korean officials and analysts to worry.
Trump has stressed his direct communication with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, and has hinted that there is still a possibility of communication between the two. On August 17, Trump stated Kim had responded to his overtures.
South Korean authorities are also hoping for improved relations between Washington and Pyongyang.
But there is an important distinction between creating an opening for negotiations and actually achieving an agreement.
Trump had several meetings with Kim during his initial term in office, however, these talks failed to yield a long-term agreement to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. That history will make it hard to judge the present strategy until some tangible results become apparent.
Trump has always had an attitude of "cost, leverage, and reciprocity" when it comes to international relations. It can provide obvious negotiating leverage, but also can lead to tensions with nations which Washington has long considered strategic allies.
South Korea has been a long-time U.S. ally. Oman is different with Washington, yet has been a key player in the region diplomatically.
The pressure may be equally effective for hardliners in Washington, but may also create uncertainty for allies and partners on the U.S. side on the predictability of U.S. policy.
This uncertainty is important because American influence is not just about the military might. It also relies on the alliances and diplomatic ties and confidence that Washington will be a reliable partner in the event of disagreements.
In that sense, Washington is finally pushing its allies to do more, and are not willing to accept anything they deem as unfair and are putting their force into actualizing their goals.
That might work if other governments make concessions due to the pressure.
The danger is the pressure doesn't necessarily convert to co-operation.
There may be a lack of willingness to compromise by a threatened government. An Ally can lose trust in the relationship. The divisions among Washington and its partners can be seen as an opportunity by an adversary.
This is the crux of Trump's foreign policy issue these days.
The Middle East will be the main question whether negotiations with Iran, Oman and the Strait of Hormuz can yield a viable deal to get commercial shipping flowing again and meet Washington's concerns.
In East Asia, the focus will shift to whether the lowered South Korea-U.S. military drills will spur a resumption of talks with North Korea, or raise fears about military readiness.
To Trump, the best measure of success is results.
A lot of words can make for a good headline but foreign policy is finally measured by what comes after the threats, talk and meetings.
If Trump's pressure yields deals that enhance the security of the United States and benefit the United States, his supporters will have a good case that it's working.
But if it is unable to win over partners and unable to make progress toward breakthroughs in its relations with Iran or North Korea, critics will have further proof of Trump's erratic foreign policy.
For the moment, the answer in the Middle East to that question is Oman, South Korea, Iran and North Korea, each very different in response.
If the U.S. got in the way of the U.S. reaching an agreement with Iran, Trump threatened to attack Oman. The remarks were made at a time when Iran and Oman were working on their own chart of course of action for shipping through the crucial waterway.
The threat is particularly poignant given Oman's history of playing a significant diplomatic role between nations which can struggle to communicate directly.
Oman is not just a Middle Eastern government caught up in the dispute, but has been a venue for talks between Iran and Western governments.
Why the Strait of Hormuz Matters
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the most important water passages of the world.The strait between Iran and Oman is a critical route for much of the world's energy trade. It has already played a part in driving up energy and transportation costs, putting a strain on economies not just in the Middle East.
Opening the strait is, thus, a cornerstone of the Trump administration's Iran policy.
But the diplomatic path to that end is becoming more complicated. Iran and Oman have been discussing a potential deal for commercial shipping, but Washington would like more than just that, as it also wants to have a deal with regard to Iran's nuclear program.
Trump's willingness to threaten Oman reveals a lot about how hard-pressed his administration will go. But also naturally, a question is raised in my mind as to whether threats to a potential mediator can make a complex negotiation easier?
Washington Presses South Korea To Take Action
The Oman affair is not the only one of the recent foreign-policy choices that provokes worry.Trump has also directed the Pentagon to cut back drastically on U.S. involvement in joint military drills with South Korea.
The annual Ulchi Freedom Shield exercises started Aug. 17 and are meant to boost the U.S. and South Korean forces' capacity to tackle North Korea threats. The exercises feature around 18,000 South Korean soldiers and feature training exercises for modern threats including cyberattacks and GPS interference as well as drones.
Trump blasts expenses of the drills and also mentions South Korea's hesitation to back U.S action against Iran.
His administration has also made Kim Jong Un's relationship with Trump a hallmark of why it should not be confrontational with Pyongyang.
The South Korea Decision Is Controversial for Several Reasons
The policy is viewed in two quite different ways.Some might say that diminishing exercises could allow for diplomacy with North Korea. South Korea has even said that it hopes Trump's new strategy will bring a fresh dynamic to the dialogue with Pyongyang.
However, opponents argue that there may be a security issue.
Joint exercises are no longer just symbolic exercises. They assist the U.S. and South Korean troops in coordination and readiness for possible conflict.
Their reduction would then impact military readiness and the coordination of alliances, especially as North Korea still continues to advance its military, and its relations with Russia.
Hence, the decision has brought some U.S. and South Korean officials and analysts to worry.
Trump and Kim Jong Un's Relationship
But Trump's friendship with Kim is one of the strangest aspects of his foreign policy.Trump has stressed his direct communication with North Korea's Kim Jong Un, and has hinted that there is still a possibility of communication between the two. On August 17, Trump stated Kim had responded to his overtures.
South Korean authorities are also hoping for improved relations between Washington and Pyongyang.
But there is an important distinction between creating an opening for negotiations and actually achieving an agreement.
Trump had several meetings with Kim during his initial term in office, however, these talks failed to yield a long-term agreement to dismantle North Korea's nuclear program. That history will make it hard to judge the present strategy until some tangible results become apparent.
Does Trump's Foreign-Policy Approach Have Become Too Businesslike?
That's where the more general criticism of Trump's foreign policy shines.Trump has always had an attitude of "cost, leverage, and reciprocity" when it comes to international relations. It can provide obvious negotiating leverage, but also can lead to tensions with nations which Washington has long considered strategic allies.
South Korea has been a long-time U.S. ally. Oman is different with Washington, yet has been a key player in the region diplomatically.
The pressure may be equally effective for hardliners in Washington, but may also create uncertainty for allies and partners on the U.S. side on the predictability of U.S. policy.
This uncertainty is important because American influence is not just about the military might. It also relies on the alliances and diplomatic ties and confidence that Washington will be a reliable partner in the event of disagreements.
The Risk of Winning the Argument and Losing the Relationship
These moves might not be the ones that Trump's supporters associate with him.In that sense, Washington is finally pushing its allies to do more, and are not willing to accept anything they deem as unfair and are putting their force into actualizing their goals.
That might work if other governments make concessions due to the pressure.
The danger is the pressure doesn't necessarily convert to co-operation.
There may be a lack of willingness to compromise by a threatened government. An Ally can lose trust in the relationship. The divisions among Washington and its partners can be seen as an opportunity by an adversary.
This is the crux of Trump's foreign policy issue these days.
What Happens Next?
The coming weeks will show if Trump's plan is working out to give him leverage or simply adding to diplomatic issues.The Middle East will be the main question whether negotiations with Iran, Oman and the Strait of Hormuz can yield a viable deal to get commercial shipping flowing again and meet Washington's concerns.
In East Asia, the focus will shift to whether the lowered South Korea-U.S. military drills will spur a resumption of talks with North Korea, or raise fears about military readiness.
To Trump, the best measure of success is results.
A lot of words can make for a good headline but foreign policy is finally measured by what comes after the threats, talk and meetings.
If Trump's pressure yields deals that enhance the security of the United States and benefit the United States, his supporters will have a good case that it's working.
But if it is unable to win over partners and unable to make progress toward breakthroughs in its relations with Iran or North Korea, critics will have further proof of Trump's erratic foreign policy.
For the moment, the answer in the Middle East to that question is Oman, South Korea, Iran and North Korea, each very different in response.