Gaza to Ukraine: Trump’s Coercive Diplomacy Goes Global

Gaza and Ukraine: The Future of Coercive Diplomacy?

On Sept. 29, U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu jointly announced a ceasefire, stopping the two-year old Gaza conflict, at least for a time.

As Hamas returned the final hostages to Israel, Trump claimed the United States’ June 2025 strike against Iran’s nuclear program was the impetus for the deal, stating, “it really started when we took out the nuclear capability of Iran.”

The authors have previously argued in these pages that the U.S. strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were the first salvos in a process eventually culminating in peace negotiations between the United States, Israel, and Iran. Such talks should be underpinned by a commitment to coercive diplomacy. By demonstrating a willingness to hurt an enemy, generating a fear of unacceptable escalation, and creating inherent bargaining power, President Trump was able to use coercive diplomacy to potentially end the Gaza conflict.

True to a commitment to coercive diplomacy principles, Trump followed the successful “Midnight Hammer” operation with increasingly aggressive rhetoric toward Iran’s proxy partner, Hamas, that created a sense of urgency for the militant group to negotiate an end to the conflict. On Oct. 3, Trump gave Hamas 48 hours to accept his proposed peace agreement, while affirming Israel’s right to continue its offensive if Hamas rejected the deal. The next day, President Trump increased the pressure by warning Hamas would face “complete obliteration” if it did not agree to a ceasefire deal.

What does the success of Trump’s coercive tactics mean for future U.S. foreign policy decisions? The question is especially relevant to another vexing foreign policy issue: the Russo-Ukrainian conflict.

Like the Gaza conflict, all attempts to negotiate a peaceful ending to the war in Ukraine have failed. Despite his forces suffering more than 1 million casualties and his country facing significant economic challenges, Russian President Vladimir Putin has steadfastly refused to abandon his military campaign against Ukraine. To break the stalemate, President Trump may have to force him to the negotiating table through coercive diplomacy.

For years, the United States has slowly increased its weapons transfers to Ukraine, and during each stage, Putin warned of the dire consequences of this “escalation.” Now Trump is considering sending Tomahawk cruise missiles to Ukraine. Putin claims such a move would lead to “the destruction of Moscow’s relationship with Washington.”

The Tomahawk is a subsonic missile with a 1,000-pound warhead. The U.S. primarily uses these missiles to attack high-value, heavily defended targets on land. With a range of up to 2,500 kilometers, the weapon can reach targets inside Russia including airfields and defense industry sites, possibly swinging the conflict in Ukraine’s favor.

In addition to providing Ukraine with a formidable weapon system, Trump called Russia a “paper tiger” that “has been fighting aimlessly for three and a half years a war that should have taken a real military power less than a week to win.”

Despite speculation that this statement represents a change in U.S. policy toward Ukraine, a more accurate assessment is that the president is pursuing a coercive diplomatic tactic to increase negotiation leverage. An administration official succinctly captured the approach by (rhetorically) asking, “Why would he give up that leverage? He won’t remove the threat until it’s no longer necessary.”

President Trump’s threat seemed to have secured a follow-on meeting with Putin in Budapest in the coming weeks, but that now appears to have been canceled after follow-on negotiations. But after the successful use of coercive diplomacy to achieve the Gaza ceasefire agreement, Trump needs to maintain pressure on Russia. This is crucial if the United States wishes to bring about a realistic peace dialogue regarding the Ukraine war.

For example, the U.S. could continue to support Ukraine’s devastating attacks on Russia’s energy infrastructure. On the other hand, Trump could take a more conservative approach to provide room for negotiations. He reportedly rejected Ukraine’s request for Tomahawk missiles at a bilateral meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, at least for now. Describing the weapons as a “big deal,” President Trump said that “the threat of that [the missiles] is good, but the threat of that is always there.”

Tomahawk missiles don’t appear to be Trump’s only effort at coercive diplomacy. In an attempt to squeeze Russia economically, the Trump administration has threatened massive tariffs on Indian goods if that country does not stop buying Russian oil.

Although a reduction in Russian oil exports to India won’t happen overnight, any reduction would force Russia to find new markets or sell oil at bigger discounts, which could negatively affect its already struggling wartime economy.

What Happens Next? 

In sum, Trump’s gambit in Gaza might succeed—especially in the short term. The longer-term horizon seems murky, as events in the Middle East seldom proceed in a linear, predictable pattern. But President Trump’s apparent success with coercive diplomacy could embolden his foreign policy decisions.

Assuming the administration doesn’t want direct involvement in the Ukraine conflict, now is the time to follow a coercive diplomatic playbook to possibly secure a peace in the largest and deadliest European land war since World War II.

About the Authors:

Joe Swiecki and Jim Cook are Professors of National Security Affairs at the U.S. Naval War College. The views expressed here are solely those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent the views, policies, or positions of the US Government, US Department of Defense or its components, including the Department of the Navy or the U.S. Naval War College.