In international diplomacy, there are two primary approaches to negotiation: strategic vision and transactional bargaining. Strategic vision sees the world as an interconnected system where negotiations serve broader geopolitical goals, often requiring prolonged engagement and compromise. Transactional bargaining, on the other hand, treats each deal as an isolated exchange, focused on immediate benefits and willing to discard commitments if they no longer serve an interest. These two paradigms have defined foreign policy throughout history—from the post-World War II global order, which emphasized alliances and stability, to more recent trends of ad-hoc diplomacy where leaders prioritize short-term gains over long-term strategy.
One of the most famous examples of strategic vision was President George H.W. Bush’s careful coalition-building before the Gulf War in 1991. Rather than acting unilaterally, he worked with a broad alliance of nations to ensure that any military intervention would reinforce a stable world order. Conversely, figures like Richard Nixon demonstrated the power of transactional bargaining in diplomacy, particularly in his opening to China, where he viewed diplomacy primarily through the lens of immediate US interests rather than ideological alignment.
This same fundamental contrast defines the foreign policy approaches of President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump. Biden views negotiations as part of a larger diplomatic architecture, often tying individual deals to broader realignments in international politics. His efforts in the Israel-Hamas ceasefire negotiations were not just about hostages and truce terms; they were about reshaping the Middle East through an interconnected framework that included Saudi Arabia, Iran, and regional security dynamics.
Trump, by contrast, sees the world in strictly transactional terms, where each negotiation stands alone. His interaction with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky exemplified this approach—when Ukraine’s stance no longer aligned with his interests, he simply walked away, treating the country not as part of a long-term US security strategy but as a deal that had failed to deliver sufficient value. For Trump, alliances and commitments are only as good as their immediate returns.
By examining these two leaders’ approaches—Biden’s pursuit of a grand geopolitical vision and Trump’s preference for deal-by-deal negotiations—it becomes clear that their ‘take it or leave it’ moments were not just about tactics but about how each man fundamentally sees the world. Nowhere is this more evident than in Biden’s failed attempt to broker a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and Trump’s public humiliation of Zelensky, two moments that exposed their underlying strategic priorities.
Biden’s Approach: A ‘Take It or Leave It’ Deal That Never Ends
In August 2024, the Biden administration launched a final diplomatic push to broker a ceasefire in Gaza, centered on a proposed exchange of hostages held by Hamas for Palestinian prisoners in Israel. This effort was not just about resolving a humanitarian crisis—it was a key component of a broader Middle East strategy aimed at realigning regional power structures. Biden’s vision included strengthening ties between Israel and Saudi Arabia, containing Iranian influence, and ensuring long-term stability in the region through a recalibrated diplomatic framework.
The Biden administration framed its ceasefire proposal as a “take it or leave it” deal, emphasizing that if neither Israel nor Hamas accepted its terms, the US might withdraw from mediation. Yet, the very structure of Biden’s diplomatic approach suggested otherwise. His administration saw the ceasefire negotiations not as an isolated issue but as part of a greater geopolitical project. This meant that, despite rhetorical ultimatums, the US could not afford to disengage completely, as doing so would undermine the larger diplomatic architecture Biden was trying to construct.
The fundamental flaw in Biden’s strategy was not the negotiation itself but its overambition. By tying the ceasefire deal to a larger regional realignment, he made it nearly impossible to reach an agreement. Each party—Israel, Hamas, Egypt, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia—had different, often conflicting, incentives. While Hamas sought maximum prisoner releases and an end to Israeli military operations, Netanyahu’s government faced domestic pressure not to make concessions that could be perceived as a victory for Hamas. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia was hesitant to engage in deeper normalization with Israel without progress on Palestinian statehood, and Iran actively worked to sabotage any deal that reduced its influence in Gaza.
As a result, Biden’s “take it or leave it” stance was ultimately a diplomatic posture rather than a real ultimatum. The US continued negotiating even when its stated red lines were crossed. The execution of six Israeli hostages, including US citizen Hersh Goldberg-Polin, should have marked a breaking point, but instead, it became another data point in an ongoing, iterative negotiation process. This persistence reflected Biden’s broader worldview: diplomacy is a long game, and deals must be pursued even in the face of setbacks.
However, this approach also weakened the perceived credibility of American pressure. If Biden’s administration was unwilling to walk away after its terms were rejected, what incentive did Hamas or Netanyahu have to compromise? The strategy, while well-intentioned and comprehensive, became trapped in a cycle of diminishing leverage, where the threat of disengagement was never fully realized.
Trump’s philosophy of international relations was fully displayed during his Oval Office confrontation with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in early 2025. The meeting, which was meant to be a discussion about continued US aid to Ukraine, instead became a public dressing-down. Trump and Vice President J.D. Vance criticized Zelensky for his lack of gratitude and insisted that Ukraine had failed to show how further American support directly benefited US interests.
The message was clear: Ukraine was no longer useful in Trump’s geopolitical calculus. Trump treated the meeting not as a reaffirmation of US commitment to Ukraine’s war effort, but as a performance—an opportunity to signal to both domestic and foreign audiences that American aid was conditional, transactional, and could be withdrawn at any moment. Unlike Biden’s pursuit of long-term strategic objectives, Trump approached Ukraine as a short-term investment that had failed to yield the expected returns.
This moment marked a fundamental shift in American foreign policy, breaking a nearly century-old tradition rooted in Wilsonian idealism, which positioned the US as a global stabilizing force engaged in conflicts beyond its shores. Instead, Trump’s approach echoed isolationist rhetoric, rejecting the idea that the US should involve itself in wars that happen “an ocean away,” as he bluntly put it. This departure signals a return to a more detached stance in global affairs, where alliances are conditional, and military commitments are no longer assumed.
What This Means for Israel
Trump’s foreign policy is purely transactional—if an ally doesn’t serve his interests, he leaves. His broader Middle East strategy does not center around Israel but instead prioritizes creating a Saudi-led security structure to counterbalance Iran. Unlike past US presidents, he does not see Israel as an indispensable part of this equation. If Israel’s policies do not align with his vision or interests, he could distance himself from the country just as he did with Ukraine.
Ukraine, however, still enjoys strong support from European leaders, as evidenced by the warm welcome Zelensky received from the UK Prime Minister after being publicly dismissed by Trump. In contrast, Netanyahu appears to be overly reliant on Trump without a clear independent strategy of his own. This places Israel on a dangerous path, as it risks losing diplomatic leverage and being treated as just another transaction in Trump’s foreign policy playbook. Without a broader strategic vision, Israel could find itself in a precarious position, where support is conditional and alliances are fleeting.