• Arrive with a deal that will look good in the media and that does not betray the national interest
• A leader in discussions with Trump should have so much control over the facts of whatever issue is under discussion that they can effectively, convincingly stand up for their chosen position, and for the interests of their state and society.

ISTANBUL

Hurricane Donald? Certainly, the devastation that US President Donald Trump is wreaking on the structures of international relations can be compared to Hurricane Melissa's aftermath in Jamaica. Despite the loss of life and destruction, Jamaica will be able to rebuild with aid and time. But three years from now, what will remain of the US' international stature, and the post-WWII international order that the US sponsored and underpinned, is an entirely different matter.

For many countries today, Donald Trump's United States seems like a horrifying mirage or a confounding hallucination that violates the most basic expectations and behaviors that they had grown used to during the past 80 years.

Other states have not had that same experience, though.

The ‘really existing’ United States

The Cold War and decolonization provided many societies around the world with a different experience of what exactly American values consisted of. Coups d’état, assassinations, and invasions were what many Asian, African, and Latin American societies experienced as US foreign policy.

In dealing with the "really existing" United States rather than the Hollywood version, Türkiye learned at an early point that what US officials decide to do may not always coincide with their stated ideals or signed treaties. Even though Truman administration officials understood Türkiye's value to US global strategy, the behaviors and policies that logic demanded from US policymakers in order to maintain that relationship began to fade beginning with the Eisenhower administrations. The explicit lesson of the Johnson Letter [1] or the 1970s arms embargo [2] for Türkiye's officials was that the US would behave as it chose to, no matter what "solemn agreements" had been concluded between the two sides.

So fast forward to the first Trump administration in 2018. As is well known, in August 2018 President Trump purposefully triggered an attack on Türkiye’s economy in response to several situations, especially the Pastor Brunson controversy [3].

However, within four months, the relationship between Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan developed to the point where Trump told his Turkish counterpart that he was pulling out of Syria, which would then become Türkiye’s responsibility [4].

Even though forces in the Pentagon, specifically officials at CENTCOM, would never follow Trump's directives concerning Syria, the tone of the relationship between Erdogan and Trump had been established. Since then, they have, in public at least, enjoyed a remarkably close working cooperation. How did that happen?

The Trump rules

Erdogan seems to have understood quickly how to interact with Trump, which can be summarized in several key points.

First, discussion of controversial matters should take place behind closed doors. Trump is notoriously sensitive to how he is portrayed in the media. For that reason, public interaction with Trump should be calm and accommodating. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy made the mistake of trying to debate difficult topics with Trump in front of the cameras, and the whole world witnessed the resulting disastrous scene.

Second, discussions of problematic issues behind closed doors should be done confidently and supported by full and detailed control over all of the facts relevant to any specific subject. Trump is not well informed about even the most prominent issues – as is illustrated on a daily basis through his comments to the press – so effective preparation is an important advantage for negotiators.

Finally, a leader in discussions with Trump should have so much control over the facts of whatever issue is under discussion that they can effectively, convincingly stand up for their chosen position, and for the interests of their state and society. However, that must also be done confidently and in a manner that is not condescending towards Trump. The leader should be deferential to Trump, but if Trump detects weakness or obsequiousness, he attacks. Any leader interacting with him must find a way to conduct negotiations in a manner that does not imply disrespect.

Connected to that point is Trump’s "dealmaker" persona: if a leader in negotiations with Trump can offer some sort of deal for Trump to flaunt for his media allies, that will contribute another positive factor. Whether or not the deal is concrete or well-conceived does not seem to be important [5]. The vital element is that the deal can create a positive and impressive media image for Trump’s voters. So, the more monumental the deal (or the sums involved), the better.

Gifts and flattery?

Another Trump technique that foreign officials have quickly embraced is ostentatious gifts accompanied by flattery [6]. However, these do not seem to be mandatory gestures. Neither Erdogan, nor Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, have gifted gold-plated objects or effusively praised Trump in front of the cameras, yet they both have Trump's respect. Other world political figures [7] have avoided flattering Trump and, even though their relationship with Trump may not be easy, they are not subjected to the treatment that the EU’s leaders received [8].

Ultimately, if a world leader wants to successfully negotiate with Trump without becoming his ideological ally, confidence, knowledge, and restraint are vital. In front of the cameras, defer to Trump’s lead; behind closed doors, negotiate confidently, knowledgeably, calmly. Arrive with a deal that will look good in the media and that does not betray the national interest.

And three years hence, we will see whether the US remains the "indispensable nation" or not.

[1] The infamous letter from US President Lyndon Johnson to Türkiye’s Prime Minister İsmet İnönü, which stated that the US would not necessarily defend Türkiye – despite Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty – if Türkiye took actions in Cyprus that the Soviet Union reacted to militarily.

[2] Despite the fact that Türkiye was and remains one of the three internationally-recognized guarantors of the Cyprus communities, the US Congress chose to impose an arms embargo on Türkiye, a NATO ally, in 1975 after Türkiye’s 1974 intervention in Cyprus.

[3] At the time, this was not publicly stated, but Trump later claimed credit: https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1181232249821388801

[4] https://www.aa.com.tr/en/analysis-news/-turkey-s-new-regional-security-role-70-years-late/1350816

[5] https://cepr.net/publications/trumps-economic-lie-of-the-week-japan-trade-deal/; https://paulkrugman.substack.com/p/i-coulda-made-a-better-deal

[6] https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20251029-monarch-loving-trump-gifted-golden-crown-once-worn-by-south-korean-kings

[7] Figures that immediately come to mind are Brazil’s President Lula da Silva, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and Russian President Vladimir Putin. World leaders who consider themselves Trump’s ideological collaborators, such as Argentina’s Javier Milei, El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, or Hungary’s Viktor Orban, are treated differently.

[8] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjeynw8jppdo

*Opinions expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Anadolu's editorial policy.