U.S. President Donald Trump checks his hair before sitting down for a podcast interview at the Varsity restaurant, in Rome, Georgia, U.S., February 19, 2026. REUTERS Kevin Lamarque
On Tuesday, a leading conservative magazine called it: no one takes President Donald Trump “seriously,” and it’s not only hurting the United States’ credibility but causing a disaster in the Middle East that will have far-reaching consequences.
This is according to the American Conservative’s managing editor Jude Russo, who writes, “People have started to notice that the administration has a propensity for extravagant threats followed by equally extravagant walkbacks, often in concert with the weekly operations of the markets.” He raises the example of Trump’s claim last week that the U.S. would soon be hitting Iran “hard,” referring to a much-touted plan to attack the Pickaxe Mountain nuclear site, which White House officials leaked as imminent even as commentators wrote that it would never happen.
“I’d submit that this is a problem,” writes Russo. “America’s diplomatic credibility is not looking too good. The recurring revision of previously agreed-upon premises, the constant toggling between mediation channels, and most of all the apparent use of negotiations as cover for surprise attacks have made it difficult for other parties to take the U.S. at its word. This problem isn’t limited to adversaries like Venezuela and Iran. Two weeks ago, after signing an agreement with Saudi Arabia for the development of a civilian nuclear program, Trump fired off a social media post conditioning the agreement retroactively on Saudi normalization of ties with Israel — which, given the mood of the Arab street, amounts to nixing the deal.”
According to Russo, this “loss of diplomatic credibility” means that the U.S. will have to rely “more heavily on the application of force at a time when it was hoping to rely on this less.” What’s more, Trump’s hollowed-out threats have much the same effect: “As threats become less effective, there will be pressure to follow through on them to inflict coercion and, secondarily, to restore their credibility.” Because of this dynamic, “Everything that isn’t physical coercion is being sapped of its power, and force is a limited, expensive, and messy technique; indeed, the fact that we have not fully committed ourselves to this path is a testament to how unpleasant even the authors of this war find its consequences.”
“There’s a lesson here,” asserts Russo. “Hypocrisy, deception and a touch of unpredictability are no doubt useful, even necessary tools of statecraft. As most people who have been through normal childhoods know, though, the efficacy of a lie depends on the credibility of its teller ... Your word must be your bond not because of the divine decrees of Moses, St. Paul, and Dale Carnegie, but because it’s the only way human systems can work ... Sometimes, honesty is the best politics.”
Russo writes that another example came Monday, when it was reported that “Iranian elites are growing skeptical that a deal with the United States is even possible — that they believe the U.S. is for structural reasons unable to commit to any sort of agreement that it will not subsequently undermine.”
Russo concludes on no uncertain terms, writing, “This is dangerous; a semi-frozen conflict in the Middle East straining the world economy indefinitely is not an ideal outcome. And, of course, it was avoidable. But the question now is whether American negotiating credit can be salvaged, perhaps with some confidence-building measures like prompt follow-through on some of the concessive parts of the June MOU — sanctions relief and the like — or, at the minimum, by not issuing apocalyptic but empty threats. It may not yet be too late to turn over a new leaf, but it’s getting there.”
