Kenneth Glad
The recent tensions with Iran and the Vatican are challenging Donald Trump’s political playbook, revealing the limits of his traditional reliance on pressure, negotiation, and leverage. What has worked domestically and in more conventional diplomatic encounters may not be enough in these unique circumstances. These clashes expose the difficulty of dealing with opponents whose motivations are grounded in ideology or moral authority rather than material incentives.
Trump’s handling of Iran is a prime example of how his usual tactics fail to account for the complexity of certain global conflicts.
As pointed out in a Los Angeles Times opinion column by Matt K. Lewis, Iran’s leadership is not primarily driven by economic or political gain, but by a combination of religious ideology and long-term strategic interests.
In such a scenario, the familiar Trump approach – using economic sanctions or military threats to force concessions – faces serious limitations.
Instead of quickly succumbing to pressure, Iran’s leadership has shown resilience, taking actions that disrupt Trump’s assumptions.
As Lewis puts it, the expectation that “everyone has a price” falters when confronting ideologically motivated opponents who are willing to endure significant hardship for their beliefs.
The Pope’s moral authority
Trump’s tensions with Pope Leo XIV further illustrate how faith-based opposition complicates his strategy.
The pope, known for his moral and spiritual leadership, has openly resisted Trump’s attempts to leverage political pressure.
His criticism of the war in Iran, paired with statements like, “Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic and political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth,” directly challenges Trump’s view of power.
This, Lewis argues, represents a broader problem: Not all global players are motivated by the same forces that drive traditional statecraft.
Moral or ethical values often come into conflict with Trump’s transactional style, creating an unyielding resistance to his typical methods.
A shift in the playbook
Lewis’ column reflects on how Trump’s history of overcoming obstacles – through negotiation, bullying, and media manipulation – has allowed him to emerge victorious in many contentious situations.
However, he argues that this well-worn playbook may not work when opponents are driven by deep-rooted values that transcend mere material gain.
Trump’s strategy has often succeeded in part because it focuses on power and money. But when confronting individuals or regimes where sacrifice, identity, and ideology are paramount, his usual tools of influence – sanctions, threats, and economic incentives – might not hold as much sway.
The column suggests that this shift in the nature of global opposition could mark the first time Trump is faced with adversaries who are immune to his standard approach, forcing him to adapt in ways he has rarely been compelled to do before.
Source: Los Angeles Times (Matt K. Lewis opinion column)
