Isolation in exchange for initiative

May 23 revealed once again the markedly unilateral nature of the United States’ foreign policy course. Several decisions and statements made by the Trump administration demonstrated that Washington’s strategy is increasingly based not on alliances, but on direct and sometimes provocative actions — whether in Syria, on the trade front with Canada, or in negotiations with Iran. All of this fits into a consistent, though contradictory, pattern: America is seeking influence not through global consensus, but through selective acts of pressure and demonstrative gestures.

Syria: A Turn Without Looking Back

One of the day’s most high-profile moves was President Trump’s announcement that his administration intends to lift a number of sanctions on Syria in response to the “changed political reality on the ground” — meaning the rise of a new transitional government after the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.

As reported by US News, the president emphasized: “We will not punish the people of Syria for the sins of dictators. The new path must have a chance.” Nevertheless, this decision sparked sharp internal debate within the administration, particularly in light of recent Israeli statements emphasizing the need to maintain sanctions due to the threat of renewed Iranian influence in the region.

Experts also point out that this is not the first time Trump has acted outside diplomatic coordination. If, in 2018, his administration abruptly withdrew troops from Syria, then in 2025 it is similarly initiating economic rapprochement with a new regime — without consulting NATO allies or considering the position of the UN.

Many commentators compare this to the situation in Afghanistan under Biden, when an instantaneous decision led to long-term consequences, including a loss of trust in the U.S. as a partner. A similar risk is emerging again — on a different front, but following a familiar logic: to act alone, relying on one’s own interpretation of “reality.”

Iran: Deadlock in Rome and Diplomatic Paralysis

While the White House is acting with near-arbitrary decisiveness on the Syrian front, a starkly different picture emerges in negotiations with Iran — stagnation, deadlock, and mutual intransigence. The fifth round of talks between U.S. and Iranian representatives in Rome ended today without any significant progress, despite the critical importance of the issue: halting Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for partial sanctions relief.

According to Reuters, two key points remain stumbling blocks: uranium enrichment on Iranian soil and the ballistic missile program. Tehran insists on its “sovereign right” to domestically develop peaceful nuclear technology, while the U.S. demands a complete cessation of these operations. Parallel discussions about IAEA inspectors’ access have also failed to reach agreement.

Oman has stepped in as a potential mediator, but the American side, according to the same Reuters, rejected a proposal for a parallel roadmap, calling it “premature.”

Political analysts note that this approach essentially blocks the very idea of diplomacy as compromise, turning negotiations into an exchange of ultimatums. Moreover, frustration is growing in Washington over how Tehran uses every pause in talks to make technological advancements. One State Department official, speaking anonymously, said: “Every failed round is another step for Iran toward the point of no return.”

Meanwhile, concern is mounting in Israel: the military has declared its readiness for “preemptive measures” if diplomacy fails. Defense Minister Gilad Bark stated on Channel 13: “If the U.S. can’t contain Iran, Israel will decide for itself when the red line is crossed.” This statement came virtually simultaneously with the breakdown in Rome, only reinforcing the impression that war clouds are once again gathering over Iran, and diplomacy may not move fast enough.

Yemen: The End of an Operation and Regional Signals

On May 6, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump announced an immediate end to airstrikes targeting Houthi positions in Yemen. This decision followed an agreement reached through Omani mediation, under which the Houthis committed to cease attacks on U.S. and international vessels in the Red Sea and Bab al-Mandeb Strait. 

However, as emphasized in a report by Associated Press, the Houthis stated that the ceasefire with the U.S. does not apply to Israel, and they would continue operations against Israeli targets.

Israeli officials voiced concern that the agreement had been reached without their involvement, especially in light of continuing Houthi attacks on Israeli assets. Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israel was ready to deliver a “harsh response” if the assaults continued.

Thus, while the U.S. achieved a tactical pause in Yemen, strategic instability in the region persists, particularly in the context of growing tensions between the Houthis and Israel.

Canada: Tariffs as a Message to Allies

Amid geopolitical developments — including the conclusion of operations in Yemen and stalled negotiations with Iran — the most palpable signal of the day was the escalation of the trade conflict between the U.S. and Canada. Previously, on March 4, 2025, the Trump administration imposed 25% tariffs on a broad range of Canadian imports, including steel, aluminum, automobiles, and auto parts. Energy exports such as oil and gas were exempted but still subjected to a 10% tariff. These measures were justified as necessary to reduce the trade deficit and tighten border control in response to illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling.

In response, Canada imposed 25% retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods amounting to $30 billion, with plans to expand them to $155 billion in the coming weeks. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney stated that these measures were designed to minimize harm to Canada’s economy while maximizing pressure on the United States.

Additionally, according to WSJ, the Bank of Canada has warned of a potential slowdown in economic growth if the trade conflict is not resolved soon. Bank Governor Tiff Macklem noted that ongoing tariff disputes could negatively impact consumer spending and investment.

Thus, Canada becomes the first — but not the last — target of a new wave of economic protectionism, designed not only to protect American manufacturers but to signal that alliances no longer guarantee immunity from pressure.

France: An Ambassador as a Political Statement

The appointment of Charles Kushner as the new U.S. ambassador to France became one of the most talked-about foreign policy stories on May 23. Although ambassadorial appointments rarely become international headlines, in this case, the figure, biography, and context made the nomination a political gesture. Kushner — Jared Kushner’s father and Ivanka Trump’s grandfather — was convicted in 2005 for tax evasion, witness tampering, and illegal campaign contributions. He was pardoned by Donald Trump in December 2020 during his first presidential term (AP News).

The U.S. Senate confirmed Kushner on May 19, 2025, with a 51–45 vote. The only Democrat to support his nomination was New Jersey Senator Cory Booker — a decision that sparked considerable criticism from colleagues and constituents (Reuters).

The French response was swift — although no official statements came from the Élysée Palace, several former diplomats expressed sharp disapproval. Gérard Araud, former French ambassador to the U.S., remarked ironically on social platform X: “Needless to say, he has no knowledge of our country. At least he will have access to the president. We console ourselves as best we can.” (Euronews)

This statement, along with other comments from European officials, is seen as a symptom of a broader issue — the personalization of U.S. foreign policy. Instead of appointing professional diplomats, the Trump administration favors loyal insiders whose political role is to relay Washington’s will rather than engage in dialogue.

Such a move reinforces the impression that the traditional system of diplomatic channels is being dismantled in favor of symbolic appointments that underscore a rupture with allies. For France, one of the EU’s leading powers, this is not only a message about the new American emphasis on personal ties, but also a warning: partnership no longer guarantees predictability.

Financial Signals as a Tool of Geopolitics

While the White House sends diplomatic and trade signals to allies and adversaries, stock markets, precious metals, and recession forecasts quietly chart their own map of American influence — one that speaks in the language of yields, currencies, and confidence. And on May 23, those signals became especially loud.

According to Reuters, gold today posted its strongest weekly gain in over a month amid growing concerns about the U.S. fiscal position. Analysts directly link this to the effects of Trump’s new tax package and a sharp increase in the national debt. What began as a domestic fiscal initiative has quickly turned into an international warning signal of instability.

At the same time, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, the U.S. Treasury bond market reacted sharply: yields rose, and demand for long-term securities dropped. This indicates that investors anticipate a recession or, at minimum, significant volatility, and are adjusting their behavior accordingly.

Moreover, TheStreet cites a forecast by Morgan Stanley predicting that the U.S. may enter a recession as early as August, prompting the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. While officials continue to avoid the term, markets are voting with their dollars — and the vote increasingly sounds like panic.

Finally, as AP notes, movement in Asian markets today stabilized only after a pullback in U.S. bond yields, highlighting that U.S. economic signals remain globally dominant, despite political isolation and protectionist trends.

These economic ripples reinforce the theme of the day: even when the U.S. rejects allied frameworks, it retains the power to influence — through markets, currencies, and fear. This form of foreign policy requires no ambassadors or military bases — it travels via Bloomberg tickers and central bank reports.

When Foreign Policy Becomes a Monologue

U.S. foreign policy under the Trump administration on May 23, 2025, resembled not a dialogue with the world, but a one-man show with a pre-written script. Lifting sanctions on Syria without consultations, deadlock in negotiations with Iran, ending the military operation in Yemen, escalating the trade war with Canada, and the demonstrative appointment of Charles Kushner to Paris — all are elements of a direct-action strategy, where classic diplomacy is replaced by willpower and the position that “America speaks — the world listens.”

This does not mean a complete abandonment of influence. On the contrary, May 23 showed that the United States still possesses powerful levers of pressure — from sanctions and tariffs to capital markets and psychological signals. But these instruments do not function like an orchestra — they function like percussion: precise, loud, unilateral.

The day revealed that the Trump White House operates according to the formula: “isolation in exchange for initiative.” It deliberately abandons consensus in order to preserve maneuverability. The problem is, in a world where every move has consequences, freedom quickly turns into loneliness.