The media is obsessed with the "whiplash" of Donald Trump’s rhetoric. They point to a private jab about Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman "kissing his a**" followed by public declarations that the Prince is a "fantastic man" as evidence of a chaotic, ego-driven foreign policy. They treat it like a soap opera. They analyze it as if it’s a symptom of a disordered mind or a lack of diplomatic tact.
They are completely missing the point.
This isn’t about ego. It’s not about inconsistency. It’s about a fundamental shift in how the United States manages its most complicated, dirty, and essential alliances. The "lazy consensus" among political analysts is that diplomacy must be a steady, predictable stream of platitudes and "shared values." That is a lie. Real power doesn't care about your feelings, and it certainly doesn't care about a "consistent" narrative.
The Transactional Masterclass
Most commentators view the shift from "kissing my a**" to "fantastic man" as a contradiction. In reality, it’s a synchronized dance of leverage. In the world of high-stakes energy and security, the "shared values" of human rights and democracy have always been a convenient mask for the ugly truth: we need their oil and their regional influence, and they need our weapons and our protection.
Trump simply took the mask off. By insulting a world leader in private—or leaked private settings—he establishes dominance. He signals that the relationship isn't a marriage of equals; it’s a client-state relationship where the U.S. holds the cards. The subsequent public praise is the "payoff" for compliance. It’s the reward for the multibillion-dollar arms deals and the stabilization of global oil markets.
Critics call this "unpredictable." I call it "pricing the asset." When you’re negotiating a deal, you don't start by telling the other party they’re perfect. You find the leverage, you apply pressure, and then you offer the olive branch once the terms are favorable to you.
Dismantling the Myth of "Strategic Stability"
The foreign policy establishment—the "Blob," as Ben Rhodes famously called it—is terrified of this approach because it exposes their own obsolescence. They thrive on the idea that diplomacy requires decades of slow-moving, bureaucratic "engagement." They want everything to be "paramount" and "pivotal" (terms they love because they mean nothing and everything at once).
But what has that "stability" actually bought the U.S. in the Middle East over the last thirty years?
- Stagnation: A frozen conflict in Yemen that only shifted when the regional players were forced to the table by raw pressure.
- Entrenchment: A Saudi regime that felt entitled to American support regardless of their internal or external actions.
- Inefficiency: Diplomatic channels that were more about keeping up appearances than achieving concrete goals.
By breaking the "rules" of decorum, Trump forced the Saudis to re-evaluate their position. When the Prince is told he’s "kissing a**," he knows the blank check is gone. When he’s called "fantastic," he knows exactly what he had to do to earn that label. It’s brutal, it’s transactional, and it’s far more honest than anything we’ve seen in decades.
The Real Cost of "Nice" Diplomacy
I’ve seen this play out in the private sector a thousand times. A CEO comes in and demands a 20% cut from a longtime vendor. The vendor is outraged. They point to their "long history" and "mutual respect." The CEO doesn't care. He says, "Your product is mediocre, and your prices are too high. Fix it or you're out." Three months later, the vendor has cut costs, improved quality, and the CEO is praising them as a "strategic partner" in the annual report.
Is the CEO a hypocrite? No. He’s a professional. He got what he wanted by being a jerk, then smoothed it over to keep the relationship functional. That’s exactly what we’re seeing here.
The "experts" want us to believe that this approach damages the "global order." What they really mean is it damages their ability to control the narrative. They want a world where every word is vetted by three sub-committees and a dozen lawyers. But that’s not how the world works anymore. We are in a post-consensus era.
Why the "Flip-Flop" Narrative is Flawed
People keep asking: "How can we trust a leader who changes his mind so fast?"
The question itself is flawed. You aren't supposed to "trust" the words; you're supposed to watch the results.
- Oil Prices: Have they remained relatively stable despite massive regional upheaval? Yes.
- Arms Sales: Are billions of dollars flowing back into the U.S. defense industry? Yes.
- Regional Alignment: Is there a growing, if silent, coalition against Iranian expansionism that includes both Israel and Saudi Arabia? Yes.
If the price for these results is a few confusing headlines and a bruised ego in Riyadh, that’s a bargain. The "flip-flop" isn't a bug; it's a feature. It keeps your adversaries and your "allies" guessing. It ensures that no one ever gets too comfortable or feels they can take American support for granted.
The Danger of the "Moral High Ground"
One of the biggest complaints from the competitor article and its ilk is the "moral" failure of praising a man like MBS, especially after the Khashoggi incident. This is the ultimate "lazy consensus." It assumes that the U.S. can afford to act as the world’s moral arbiter while simultaneously relying on the very people it’s judging for its economic and national security.
This isn't to say morality doesn't matter. It’s to say that in the cold reality of geopolitics, morality is a luxury of the secure. If you want to hold the moral high ground, you first have to have the ground. You don't get that by alienating the most powerful player in the world's most volatile region over a "principled" stand that yields zero tangible benefits.
The truth that nobody wants to admit is that the "fantastic man" comment was a signal to the entire world: The U.S. is back to putting its interests first, and we don't care how "messy" it looks on Twitter.
Stop Asking for Consistency, Start Asking for Value
The obsession with "what he said then" versus "what he says now" is a distraction for the masses. It’s for people who want their politics to feel like a Disney movie where the good guys and bad guys are clearly labeled and stay that way. Real life is a series of shifting alliances and temporary truces.
If you’re waiting for a leader who will speak with one voice and never offend your sensibilities, you’re going to be waiting forever. Or worse, you’ll get someone who speaks beautifully while the country’s influence erodes from the inside out.
The next time you see a headline about a "shocking" reversal in diplomatic tone, don't ask if it’s consistent. Ask who benefits. Ask what was traded in the dark to make that public praise happen. Ask what the alternative would have been—another decade of polite, expensive failure?
Stop analyzing the words and start analyzing the leverage. The "kissing my a**" comment wasn't a mistake; it was the opening bid. The "fantastic man" praise wasn't a flip; it was the closing signature.
Go back to the spreadsheets and the maps. Leave the pearl-clutching to the pundits who have never had to balance a budget, let alone a global alliance. Diplomacy isn't a conversation; it's a conquest.
Get used to the noise. It’s the sound of the gears actually turning for once.
