A profound breakdown of the transactional, performance-driven US foreign policy toward Iran, revealing how rhetorical pressure complicates structural resolutions, alienates key regional allies, and prioritizes short-term domestic visibility over durable security.
Washington’s current focus on theatrical ultimatums rather than institutionalized statecraft risks transforming complex Middle Eastern negotiations into high-stakes stalemates. The ongoing deployment of sound-and-fury diplomacy by the current administration creates tactical volatility, meaning this sound-and-fury diplomacy ultimately obscures the durable structural concessions required from adversarial states to achieve long-term regional stability.
Sound-and-fury diplomacy stalls regional warfare
Deal or no deal? That has been the central question looming in the standoff between Iran and America since a fragile ceasefire was announced on 8 April before being extended indefinitely by US President Donald Trump weeks later. There has been a flurry of diplomacy, leaks, and mixed messages about the US-Iran talks mediated by Pakistan and, most recently, Qatar.
Barbara Leaf, a former top State Department official for the Middle East, described the confusing back-and-forth of this past weekend as a “cacophony of discord”. It is difficult to know if this diplomacy might produce results or whether this is just a temporary pause before another round of war, but the mounting economic damage in both Iran and around the world is incentivising the participants, as are threats of further damage to regional infrastructure such as energy production sites and desalination plants. These high costs help explain why the belligerents have not slipped back into war.
Deep mistrust chokes sound-and-fury diplomacy progress
Trust and confidence Performative diplomacy by America and Iran adds to the confusion. The total absence of trust and confidence between the two main parties is the fundamental stumbling block. It is near impossible to achieve a lasting diplomatic deal on key issues that have plagued the relationship for decades, such as Iran’s nuclear programme, its missiles, and its support for regional partners like Hezbollah and the Houthis, along with Iran’s own demands for sanctions relief and the release of its frozen assets. Since March, there has been another factor, too: Iran’s control over the strategic chokepoint of the Strait of Hormuz. Combined, it makes the diplomatic agenda daunting.
Domestic political fractures feed sound-and-fury diplomacy
Within this, commentators churn out predictions and analysis based on partial information, mostly generating more heat than light and reinforcing past battlelines in the policy and political debates. In America, new fractures surfaced, including a caustic public exchange between Trump’s first-term Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Trump’s current White House communications director Steven Cheung. The former criticised a possible US-Iran deal based on its rumoured contents, prompting the latter to issue a less-than-courteous reply.
Sound-and-fury diplomacy prioritizes theatrical messaging
Changing reality Most analysts are waiting to see what transpires, with some observers like American Prof. Daniel Drezner suggesting that there is “really no point in further analysing any Iran deal until the actual details are published”. The often outlandish statements emanating from both the Iranian regime and the Trump administration do not help. Powerful leaders can seek to change reality with their words and this invites inaccuracy.
This is never truer than with Donald Trump, who uses performative diplomacy such as bold assertions or confrontational threats to achieve results. Performative diplomacy places a stronger premium on messaging than the actual product or outcome and it is more fixated on photo opportunities rather than behind-the-scenes negotiations that are usually vital to achieving major deals that last. The main audience of Trump’s performative diplomacy is domestic, where his public approval ratings have plummeted. A second key audience is America’s Middle East partners.
Regional partners push back on sound-and-fury diplomacy maneuvers
Ignoring partners The Iranian regime operates from a similar playbook, regularly pairing inflammatory statements with threats and actions that undermine confidence in the value of its word. This style of operating by the two main parties further complicates the efforts to achieve a lasting deal. Trump’s style of diplomacy may end up producing short-term results like the October 2025 ceasefire and hostage release deal in the Gaza war, but more lasting results and accomplishments are often elusive.
This helps explain why Trump cannot end Russia’s war against Ukraine, why the US-China summit ended up being of little consequence despite the issues at stake, and why Trump is demanding that six countries—Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Egypt, Pakistan, Türkiye, and Jordan—join the Abraham Accords and normalise ties with Israel, saying he wanted to make the possible deal with Iran “a far more historic event than it would otherwise be”.
The main problem with this approach is that it ignores the lived reality and perspectives of some of America’s closest partners in the Middle East, not least Saudi Arabia, which devoted time and attention last year to promoting the creation of a State of Palestine alongside a State of Israel. A more reliable formula and pathway to a lasting resolution, on both Iran and Israel, means listening to America’s close partners, rather than making provocative statements aimed at changing a difficult reality in the Middle East that is harder for more Americans to accept.