\n
\n One of the big things complicating all this is that the diplomatic world has changed significantly during the Trump years. The US president\u2019s singular and mercurial approach to international relations \u2013 and his preference for using personal friends or business associates instead of professional diplomats has made if tricky for allies and adversaries alike to navigate complex situations.<\/p>\n We\u2019re lucky to have the insights of Nicholas Westcott<\/a>, a former British ambassador to Cote d’Ivoire, Burkina Faso, Togo and Niger. Westcott, professor of practice in diplomacy at SOAS, University of London, parses the US president\u2019s unique diplomatic style, pointing out five distinct features of the US president\u2019s approach and the way other countries\u2019 leaders are having to adapt to cope.<\/p>\n \n One of the issues complicating America\u2019s diplomatic efforts is that Trump\u2019s main envoys, Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff, are often pursuing parallel business opportunities, sometimes in countries where the US is playing an important role in the mediation of conflicts.<\/p>\n And sometimes these business interests themselves have sparked conflict. This can be seen currently in Albania, where thousands of people have taken to the streets to protest about a coastal resort being developed by companies associated with Kushner on southern Albania\u2019s unspoiled Zv\u00ebrnec coastline and surrounding wetlands. <\/p>\n Apart from environmental objections, there are also land ownership issues. The protests have snowballed into a broad anti\u2011government movement, writes Altin Gjeta<\/a>, a political scientist at the University of Birmingham. Gjeta says the public anger has been exacerbated by the public perception of decades of official corruption \u2013 although there\u2019s no suggestion this relates in any way to the Kushner-backed project.<\/p>\n But the unrest is causing problems for Albania\u2019s ruling Socialist party and prime minister Edi Rama, several of whose former cabinet ministers are publicly criticising him over the issue.<\/p>\n \n When it comes to the MoU itself, the agreement prompted a great deal of criticism from both the US and its close ally Israel. Israelis were furious, claiming that the US president had sold them out for reasons of his own, putting their long-term security in jeopardy. Many in Trump\u2019s Republican party thought the deal was a capitulation on the president\u2019s part.<\/p>\n The deal highlighted what many of us already suggested: that Iran\u2019s ability to spark economic turmoil by closing the Strait of Hormuz gives it considerably leverage over the US. Ben Soodavar, an expert in foreign relations in the department of war studies at King\u2019s College London, identifies a vicious cycle<\/a> that presents the US with a serious quandary. <\/p>\n Israel has a right to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks. But when it takes action against Lebanon, Iran reacts by threatening to close the Strait. The US puts pressure on Israel to stand down and Israel resists. The ceasefire deal was largely prompted by Trump\u2019s realisation that the US in unable to put sufficient military pressure on Tehran to break this cycle. <\/p>\n Soodavar fears that once all the players realise that restraint is also unlikely to solve anything, then \u201cescalation ceases to be a choice. It may come to be the only available logic\u201d. <\/p>\n \n Bamo Nouri and Inderjeet Parmar, international security experts at City St George, University of London, foresee a strengthened Iran continuing to flex its muscles<\/a> in the region. <\/p>\n Tehran, they write, will be encouraged by the clear geopolitical shifts the war has already prompted \u2013 not least the cessation of any hopes that the US might have harboured to expand the Abraham Accords and the normalisation of Arab states\u2019 relations with Israel. So the Islamic Republic is likely to continue to compete for influence via its proxies in the region and via \u201cgrey-zone\u201d tactics such as cyber-warfare.<\/p>\n Meanwhile the underlying drivers of the conflict remain intact, they write: \u201cUS-Iran-Israeli relations are therefore likely to continue oscillating between confrontation and accommodation.\u201d<\/p>\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n If Europe wants to \u2018go it alone\u2019 on security, countries need to learn to sing from the same songsheet<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n How Donald Trump has changed the way diplomacy is done<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n Why a development project linked to Donald Trump\u2019s son-in-law has rocked Albania<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\nFlawed agreement<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n Read more:
\n The flaws at the heart of Donald Trump\u2019s Iran ceasefire deal<\/a>
\n <\/strong>
\n <\/em>\n<\/p>\n
\n
\n
![\"The](\"https:\/\/counter.theconversation.com\/content\/286180\/count.gif\")
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"