Shannon Love suggests that the current administration follows the “wacky sitcom mixup” school of foreign policy:
Major sustained conflicts don’t arise from misunderstandings and miscommunications. In the vast majority of cases, all sides understand all too well what the other side wants. They fight because they have a zero sum dynamic in which the gain of one side means the loss of another.In most cases, the conflict is driven by an autocratic elite in one or more parties who view the conflict as their primary vehicle for maintaining power within their own polity. They often care nothing for the suffering of their people or even the economic damage it might cause the polity as a whole. Most autocrats operate from a “better to rule in hell than serve in heaven,” model in which they would rather be the despotic rulers of a poor and crippled country than share power within a richer country. Such autocrats have no incentive to in resolve a conflict on terms equitable to the other party.
Worse, as I noted before, they often operate from seriously delusional world models that make it almost impossible for anyone else to find common ground with them. Hitler really believed a vast and ancient Jewish conspiracy existed that targeted all racial Germans. Stalin and Mao really believed in historical inevitability and the consequential inescapable conflict with all non-Communist states. The Mullahs of Iran really believe in their apocalyptic prophesy of conflict with all Jews. They really believe that America opposes them out of a hostility to Islam. The Palestinians really believe in Dar-al-Islam and therefore believe that both God and honor requires them to destroy Israel by force of arms. No negotiator has the power to alter the fundamental world view of such autocrats.
Consequently, all such deluded autocrats view negotiations as a means of buying time and/or gaining temporary advantage. They demand physical concessions up front in return for vague promises of moderating their own future behavior. (See the template for the Israeli-Muslim conflict. Israel gives up strategic territory and exposes itself to greater danger of attack. Muslims promise in return to not attack Israel and then do anyway. Then the cycle starts all over again with Muslims promising that this time they really will behave.) They never give away a serious advantage or do anything that would weaken their internal standing.
Simple honest misunderstandings don’t drive most serious conflicts. No one is going to hear something from the other side and have an, “Ah ha!” moment that resolves everything. People who appear evil aren’t just misunderstood, they’re actually evil. Anyone who goes into negotiations with such people with a naif-like belief that the conflict arises from a wacky sitcom mixup will only empower the autocrats and accelerate the conflict.