At first glance, the deceptive street game of three-card monte might seem a world away from the high stakes of international diplomacy. Yet, in its essence, this age-old swindle perfectly illustrates the "bait and switch" tactic, a manoeuvre that, when wielded by powerful nations, becomes profoundly sinister and morally repugnant. Just as the dealer's swift, seemingly simple movements initially "bait" the mark with the promise of easy money, drawing them in with the apparent clarity of following the queen, so too do leaders in international relations present appealing initial propositions. However, the moment commitment is made or negotiations are engaged, the "switch" occurs, a blur of shifting terms, a sleight of hand in policy, and the predictable outcome vanishes, leaving the counterpart bewildered and disadvantaged, caught in a game where the rules were never truly transparent. When a nation's leader consistently employs this method, it reduces complex diplomatic engagements to a cynical exercise in power and leverage, fundamentally bullying on a global scale, often seen through an act of revenge for an imagined slight or bruising of paper thin egos.. This same manipulative dynamic, when scaled to geopolitical relations, erodes trust, exploits vulnerabilities and, as tragically seen in conflicts across the globe, contributes directly to immense human suffering and the devastating loss of innocent civilian lives, as geopolitical manoeuvres become reckless gambits with human beings as collateral damage.
Understanding the "Bait and Switch" in Geopolitics
At its core, the "bait and switch" in international negotiations involves two distinct phases:
The Alluring "Bait"
This initial phase is characterised by a highly appealing proposition, a grand promise, or even an aggressive stance designed to capture attention, create leverage or establish an extreme benchmark for future negotiations. It often aims to generate positive public perception, foster a sense of imminent breakthrough, or instil a false hope of a swift and favourable resolution for all parties involved. The "bait" creates an expectation, a perceived path forward that seems beneficial or unavoidable.
The Unsettling "Switch"
Following the "bait," the "switch" involves a subsequent and often abrupt shift in demands, a retraction of implied concessions, or the presentation of a final deal that is significantly less favourable, more demanding or fundamentally different from what was initially suggested. This leaves the other party in a compromised and weakened position, having already invested significant time, resources and political capital based on the original premise. The initial promise dissolves, replaced by a new, often harsher, reality.
Trump's Application of "Bait and Switch" in Foreign Policy
Donald Trump's approach to foreign policy consistently exhibits this pattern, drawing from both his first and now, his current second term.
US-China Trade Negotiations, An Enduring Cycle
During his initial campaign and early presidency, Trump's "bait" was a forceful promise to confront China, drastically reduce the trade deficit and revitalise US manufacturing through threats of massive tariffs. This presented the prospect of a superior trade deal, a decisive "win" for the US that would fundamentally rebalance the economic relationship. However, the "switch" emerged with the "Phase One" trade deal signed in January 2020. While celebrated, it was widely criticised as far less comprehensive than advertised. It largely involved China agreeing to purchase more US goods, leaving many fundamental structural issues unaddressed and numerous tariffs in place. The perceived victory fell significantly short of the sweeping changes initially implied.
Now, in his second term as of 2025, the cycle appears to be repeating. Trump has reignited the trade war with new "reciprocal tariffs" on Chinese goods. The public "bait" remains the vow to compel China to abandon unfair trade practices and forge a more balanced relationship, often accompanied by strong rhetoric about US economic dominance. Yet, the immediate "switch" observed is the predictable wave of retaliatory tariffs from China and other trading partners, leading to increased costs for consumers and businesses in the US and creating fresh instability in global markets. Critics argue that the consistent use of broad, unilateral tariffs as a primary negotiating tool repeatedly offers the "bait" of economic victory only to "switch" into broader economic disruption without achieving stated comprehensive goals, shifting burdens onto the domestic populace.
North Korea Denuclearisation Talks: The Illusion of Progress
Trump famously engaged in unprecedented direct diplomacy with Kim Jong Un, holding high-profile summits in Singapore and Hanoi. The "bait" here was the promise of a grand bargain: complete denuclearisation of North Korea in exchange for sanctions relief and a formal end to the Korean War. The optics, including handshakes and declarations of a "great relationship," created a powerful impression of imminent peace and a significant diplomatic breakthrough. However, the "switch" became evident when, despite the fanfare, concrete progress on verifiable denuclearisation largely stalled. North Korea never fully committed to a comprehensive plan and sanctions were not lifted. The Hanoi summit, in particular, famously broke down, demonstrating that the initial engagement did not lead to the comprehensive denuclearisation that was the advertised goal. North Korea continued to develop its missile and nuclear capabilities and the "peace" remained largely aspirational. As of mid-2025, the situation remains in a holding pattern, with no substantial new breakthroughs reported, reinforcing the pattern of ambitious "bait" without a corresponding "switch" to genuine, lasting peace.
The Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) Withdrawal: Scrapping Agreed Terms
The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), agreed in 2015, saw Iran accept strict limits on its nuclear programme in exchange for sanctions relief from global powers, including the US under President Obama. For Iran and other signatories, the "bait" was a path to normalisation and integration into the global economy, provided it complied with its commitments. Despite the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) repeatedly confirming Iran's compliance, Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal in May 2018. This dramatic "switch" from a multilaterally agreed framework involved reimposing crippling sanctions and initiating a "maximum pressure" campaign. The stated "bait" for this withdrawal was to force Iran to negotiate a "better deal" that would also address its ballistic missile programme and regional behaviour. However, this action largely led to Iran progressively rolling back its commitments under the JCPOA and accelerating its uranium enrichment, pushing it closer to, rather than further from, nuclear weapons capability, escalating regional tensions, and making a "better deal" less likely. In 2025, while there have been reported efforts to engage Iran in new nuclear negotiations, these have been quickly jeopardised by aggressive actions, including the bombing of Iran in June 2025, and a lack of sustained diplomatic commitment from the US, effectively repeating the "bait and switch" pattern where talks are offered but quickly undermined by contradictory policies.
Middle East Peace Plan ("Deal of the Century") An Imposed Vision
The Trump administration repeatedly promised a "Deal of the Century" that would finally resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often hinting at an innovative and comprehensive solution that would bring lasting peace to the region, succeeding where traditional diplomacy had failed. This "bait" suggested a fresh, business-minded approach to an intractable problem. However, the "switch" became glaringly apparent when the plan was finally unveiled in January 2020. It overwhelmingly favoured Israeli interests, proposing a fragmented Palestinian state with limited sovereignty, allowing for Israeli annexation of settlements and recognising Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital. This was a stark departure from internationally recognised parameters for a two-state solution, presenting a take-it-or-leave-it offer that the Palestinians found entirely unacceptable, thus failing to achieve the advertised "peace deal." In his second term (2025), Trump has maintained a hardline pro-Israel stance and, in response to the ongoing Gaza War, has continued to suggest highly controversial measures that disregard Palestinian self-determination, further cementing the "switch" from a negotiated peace to an imposed, unilateral vision for the region. This ‘switch’ has led to the creation of the universally condemned GHF and the deaths of over 1000 civilians, many of which are murdered by US mercenaries hiding behind the obscene mask of supplying aid for a ‘Humanitarian Foundation’.
Carrier Air Conditioner Plant Jobs A Symbolic Victory
During his 2016 campaign, Trump heavily criticised Carrier for planning to move jobs from Indiana to Mexico, vowing to save American jobs. After winning the election, he personally intervened, holding a highly publicised event at the Carrier plant in Indiana. The "bait" was the promise of saving all the jobs and a symbolic commitment to American manufacturing. The "switch," however, revealed that while some jobs were indeed retained, the number was significantly lower than initially suggested (around 800 out of over 2,000 threatened jobs), and it involved substantial tax incentives from the state of Indiana, rather than solely through federal pressure. The company still moved a substantial number of jobs to Mexico. The public relations victory of saving "some" jobs masked the reality that the broader promise of stopping all outsourcing for Carrier, and by extension, other companies, was not fully delivered without significant state concessions.
Second-Term Policy Shifts (2025) Broader Implications
Beyond specific conflicts, Trump's second term has seen "bait and switch" manifest in broader policy shifts:
Foreign Aid and Global Leadership
Early in his second term, Trump issued an Executive Order suspending most international assistance for a 90-day review. The stated "bait" was to cut "unnecessary and politically driven spending" and save taxpayer money, framing it as fiscal responsibility. Yet, the anticipated "switch" is a drastic reduction or elimination of many US foreign aid programmes, particularly those not directly linked to immediate transactional interests or security objectives. This dismantling of established humanitarian and development aid is simply abandoning global leadership and sacrificing American soft power for perceived domestic savings, impacting vulnerable populations worldwide who rely on this assistance.
Cuba Sanctions: Reinforcing Hardline Stances
On Inauguration Day, Trump immediately rescinded former President Biden's actions towards easing sanctions on Cuba and removing its State Sponsor of Terrorism designation. The "bait" here is a return to a "maximum pressure" approach, ostensibly to force the Cuban government to change its behaviour and improve human rights. However, the immediate "switch" is the reinstatement of strict financial transaction prohibitions and export restrictions, which directly impact the Cuban population far more broadly than primarily targeting the government. This "bait" of strong action against the regime disproportionately punishes ordinary citizens and entrenches the very conditions it claims to oppose, without a clear pathway for negotiation or relief.
The Moral Repugnance Bullying on a Global Scale Resulting in Civilian Deaths
When reduced to its essence, the consistent application of "bait and switch" in international relations by Trump is morally repugnant because it is fundamentally a form of bullying. This type of behaviour, especially in the context of global conflicts, has tangible, devastating consequences, including the deaths of innocent civilians.
Erosion of Trust and Good Faith The Bedrock of Diplomacy Undermined
Trust forms the bedrock of stable international relations and effective diplomacy. The "bait and switch" tactic systematically dismantles this trust by demonstrating a willingness to mislead, to renege on implied agreements or to constantly shift goalposts. It signals that initial engagements are not sincere good-faith negotiations but rather cynical tactical ploys. By being unpredictable and unreliable, the powerful actor forces other nations into a position of constant uncertainty and defensiveness. This is psychological coercion, where the message conveyed is, "You cannot rely on my word, so you must always be ready to concede to my escalating demands." It's an assertion of power through a deliberate lack of transparency and a disregard for reciprocal trust, much like a schoolyard bully who constantly changes the rules of a game to ensure they win.
Exploitation of Vulnerability and Coercion Predatory Power Dynamics
Smaller, less powerful nations or those in a precarious economic or political position are particularly vulnerable to such tactics. They may genuinely need a deal, be it trade agreements, security assurances, or peace accords and are thus highly susceptible to the "bait." Once they've invested significant time, resources, and political capital in the negotiation, the "switch" to less favourable terms puts them in an extremely difficult position. They face the stark choice of accepting a bad deal or walking away with nothing, potentially exacerbating their pre-existing vulnerabilities. This is classic bullying: identifying a weaker party, offering an enticing but ultimately false promise (the bait), and then, once the target is committed, manipulating the situation to extract greater concessions or impose disadvantageous terms (the switch). The more powerful entity leverages its superior position, whether economic, military, or political, to coerce compliance with terms that are fundamentally unfair or exploitative. It is not about mutual benefit; it is about maximising one's own gain at the expense of the other, often by exploiting their desperation. Most recently, Trump’s demand that Cambodia and Thailand cease aggression or he wlil impose high tariffs is a classic example of his applying yet another ‘switch’ to get his own way.
Fostering Instability and Conflict A Volatile World Order
Stable international relations are built on predictability and adherence to agreed norms. A "bait and switch" approach introduces radical unpredictability. When nations cannot rely on the stated positions or commitments of a major power, it makes long-term planning, alliance building and crisis management far more difficult. This instability can lead to increased tensions, miscalculations and even open conflict, as states become less willing to trust diplomatic solutions and more inclined to seek self-reliance or confrontational approaches. The constant shifting of terms, the threats and the ultimate imposition of demands can be deeply destabilising. It creates an environment where other nations feel compelled to either submit to the bully's will or risk severe consequences. This is not about promoting peace or cooperation; it's about asserting dominance through psychological pressure and economic leverage, leading to a less secure global environment for everyone.
Degrading the Value of Diplomacy and International Law Undermining Global Governance
Diplomacy, at its best, is a process of respectful dialogue, compromise and mutual problem-solving. International law provides a framework for predictable and just interactions between states. "Bait and switch" undermines both. It treats diplomatic processes as mere opportunities for manipulation rather than genuine engagement. It also disregards established international norms and agreements if they conflict with the desired "switched" outcome. This devalues the very institutions and practices designed to prevent global chaos. A bully often disregards rules, norms and fairness to get their way. On a global scale, this means a disregard for diplomatic protocols, treaty obligations and established international consensus. It's a "might makes right" mentality, where the powerful actor feels entitled to dictate terms regardless of established principles or the legitimate interests of other nations.
Direct Links to Civilian Deaths Ukraine and Gaza
The "bait and switch" approach, when applied to conflicts, moves beyond mere "bullying" of states and contributes directly and indirectly to immense human suffering and loss of life. This is where the moral repugnance of such tactics becomes undeniable, as the lives of real people become collateral damage in a cynical game of power and leverage.
Ukraine Emboldening Aggression Through Wavering Support
During his first term, Trump often expressed scepticism about NATO and questioned the value of supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression. While some aid was provided, his rhetoric frequently downplayed the threat from Russia and, in some instances, even aligned with Russian narratives. This created an impression, or "bait," for Russia that the US commitment to Ukraine's sovereignty and defence was wavering, or could be easily undermined. His public focus on "ending the war in 24 hours" also created an expectation of a swift, potentially one-sided, resolution, further implying a transactional approach. This stance has been observed to continue into his second term (2025), with reports indicating a persistent transactional approach to alliances and a focus on domestic political considerations over consistent international support.
The "switch" and its consequences have been devastating. A prominent example from his first term is the withholding of crucial military aid to Ukraine in 2019, which became the subject of his first impeachment inquiry. The "bait" of US support was implicitly there, but the "switch" was the actual leverage applied to pressure Ukraine for domestic political gain. This delay, and the broader perceived weakening of US commitment, sent a dangerous signal to Russia, potentially emboldening Moscow in its long-term designs on Ukraine. In 2025, there are instances of partial pauses in US military aid to Ukraine, framed as "reviews" or to "put America's interests first," creating alarm in Kyiv and among European allies. While some aid has been approved, the overall message of fluctuating commitment remains a "switch" from predictable support, contributing to uncertainty for Ukraine. His repeated critiques of NATO and European allies, coupled with an "America First" stance, weakened the collective front against Russian aggression. This "switch" from predictable allied solidarity to a transactional, unpredictable partnership leaves Ukraine and its European supporters feeling less secure and more vulnerable. When military aid is delayed, air defences are insufficient or alliances are perceived as fractured, it directly impacts a nation's ability to defend its territory and protect its civilian population. A weakened defence means more successful missile strikes, drone attacks and ground offensives by the aggressor, leading directly to higher civilian casualties, destruction of infrastructure and mass displacement. The Kremlin, seeing a less united and less resolute Western response, feels less constrained in its aggression, including the deliberate targeting of civilian areas. The increased air attacks observed in Ukraine in 2025, alongside a pivot away from "soft-power" policies and a dismantling of US foreign aid, create an environment where civilian casualties are an exacerbated risk.
Gaza Abandoning Neutrality, Fueling Despair
The Trump administration repeatedly promised a "Deal of the Century" that would bring unprecedented peace to the Middle East. This "bait" suggested a comprehensive, innovative solution that would transcend previous diplomatic failures. For the Palestinians, there was an initial, albeit faint, hope for a just resolution. For Israel and some Arab states, it offered the prospect of regional normalisation. However, the "switch" was a series of actions that unilaterally favoured Israel, fundamentally abandoning long-standing international consensus and Palestinian negotiating positions. This included moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognising Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, cutting aid to Palestinian refugees and presenting a peace plan that offered Palestinians a fragmented state with limited sovereignty. In his second term (2025), Trump has maintained a hardline pro-Israel stance and, in response to the ongoing Gaza War, has proposed highly controversial measures such as a US "takeover" of the Gaza Strip and the "forced displacement" of Palestinians, ostensibly to rebuild it into a "Riviera of the Middle East." These proposals, though later walked back in part, fundamentally disregard international law and Palestinian self-determination, serving as a profound "switch" from any pretence of balanced peacemaking to an imposed, unilateral vision for the region. We should note that Trump has not fully discounted the idea of acquiring the Gaza Strip for his riviera and most certainly is not supporting the call for a Palestinian free state.
This highly one-sided approach and the effective removal of any US leverage over Israel regarding Palestinian rights or the occupation led to a complete disempowerment of the Palestinian side. It communicated that the US would not be an honest broker and that Palestinian concerns were secondary to its own political agenda. This shift contributed to increased tensions and a sense of hopelessness among Palestinians, potentially fuelling cycles of violence. When diplomatic pathways are seen as closed or rigged and basic rights are denied, despair can lead to intensified resistance, which in turn often elicits a disproportionate response from the more powerful party. The lack of robust international pressure, often seen as absent or muted due to the US stance, contributes to escalations where civilian populations bear the brunt. In 2025, with Gaza suffering famine and ceasefire talks collapsing, Trump's public statements blaming Hamas solely for the failure and suggesting more Israeli military action ("they're going to have to clean it up") are removing any US pressure for de-escalation, thereby directly contributing to the continuation of conflict and the immense civilian casualties.
It’s Just a Con
While the "bait and switch" may be framed by its proponents as a clever or "tough" negotiating tactic, its consistent application on the international stage, especially by a global superpower, transcends mere strategy. It transforms into a morally reprehensible form of bullying. The true horror of this approach becomes chillingly clear when its direct and indirect consequences contribute to the immense human suffering and loss of life in conflicts like Ukraine and Gaza. It reduces complex geopolitical challenges, and the lives caught within them, to mere bargaining chips, embodying a form of global bullying where the profound human cost is paid in civilian blood.
Peddling three card Monte is a crime and subject to prosecution. Trump’s version is a war crime for which he must be held accountable. The ICC must issue an arrest warrant for Trump and his senior advisors Witkoff and Vance. To not do so would be the ultimate bait and switch.
Share this post