It's not like closing a real estate deal in New York.
Quase cem dias após o início do conflito no Oriente Médio, nenhum cessar-fogo resistiu ao peso das circunstâncias. O que emerge não é apenas uma crise regional, mas uma fratura entre dois líderes que deveriam compartilhar uma visão comum: Trump, guiado por impulsos transacionais, e Netanyahu, que pode ter vendido uma guerra com o Irã como algo administrável. A distância entre a promessa e a realidade está se tornando difícil de ocultar.
- Quase cem dias de conflito sem um cessar-fogo efetivo revelam que a maquinaria diplomática americana não está à altura da complexidade do Oriente Médio.
- A negociação direta dos EUA com o Hezbollah é historicamente inédita, mas esbarra no fato de que o grupo opera com autonomia total em relação ao governo libanês.
- Netanyahu deu sinais públicos de surpresa com as ações do Irã no Estreito de Ormuz — um detalhe que, para analistas, sugere que ele pode ter subestimado o conflito que ajudou a vender aos americanos.
- A abordagem de Trump, baseada em acordos rápidos e pressão imediata, está colidindo com a realidade geopolítica de uma região que não se resolve como uma negociação imobiliária.
- A cada rodada de negociações fracassada, a distância estratégica entre Washington e Tel Aviv se aprofunda, e o limite da paciência de Trump se aproxima sem que o destino dessa ruptura esteja claro.
Quase cem dias após o início do conflito no Oriente Médio, nenhum cessar-fogo se sustentou. Carlos Gustavo Poggio, cientista político do Berea College, observa o desmoronamento com clareza: a administração Trump opera por impulsos imediatos, sem a visão estratégica de longo prazo que a diplomacia na região exige. Os acordos anunciados são curativos aplicados a feridas profundas — tratam os sintomas, não as causas.
Um sinal da excepcionalidade do momento é que um presidente americano em exercício afirmou negociar diretamente com o Hezbollah, rompendo décadas de política externa. Mas Poggio aponta o problema estrutural: o governo libanês tem controle mínimo sobre o grupo, que age segundo seus próprios objetivos e linhas vermelhas. Negociar com Beirute não é o mesmo que negociar com o Hezbollah. As variáveis não estão contidas, e os atores não respondem a uma única autoridade.
O que torna o momento ainda mais instável é o crescente distanciamento entre Trump e Netanyahu. Poggio vê sinais de que a administração americana foi conduzida a um confronto com o Irã sem avaliar plenamente as consequências. Uma entrevista recente de Netanyahu à televisão americana, na qual ele expressou surpresa com as ações iranianas no Estreito de Ormuz, sugere que o premiê pode ter vendido aos americanos uma guerra como algo gerenciável — e que a distância entre essa promessa e a realidade está se tornando difícil de esconder.
A cada negociação fracassada, a fratura entre os dois líderes se aprofunda. A visão transacional de Trump — a crença de que qualquer problema tem o negócio certo como solução — está encontrando os limites reais do Oriente Médio. E Netanyahu, que talvez tenha acreditado poder se beneficiar dessa abordagem, descobre agora que a paciência estratégica do presidente americano tem um fim. O que acontece quando esse limite é atingido permanece incerto, mas a trajetória é inconfundível.
Nearly a hundred days into the Middle East conflict, no ceasefire has held. The diplomatic machinery that was supposed to end it has stalled repeatedly, and the fractures are now visible not just in the region itself but between the two leaders who were supposed to be steering the response.
Carlos Gustavo Poggio, a political scientist at Berea College, has been watching this unravel. In his view, the Trump administration operates without the kind of sustained strategic thinking that Middle East diplomacy demands. "What we're seeing are immediate impulses from the American president," he explained in a recent interview. The deals that get announced, he suggested, are band-aids applied to situations far too intricate for quick fixes. They address the symptom, not the disease.
One measure of how unprecedented this moment is: a sitting American president has claimed to negotiate directly with Hezbollah. That alone marks a departure from decades of U.S. policy. But Poggio notes the deeper problem. The Lebanese government has minimal control over Hezbollah's actions. The group operates with its own objectives, its own calculations, its own red lines. Negotiating with Lebanon's government is not the same as negotiating with Hezbollah. "It's not like closing a real estate deal in New York," Poggio said. The variables are not contained. The actors do not answer to a single authority.
What makes the current moment particularly unstable, though, is the growing distance between Trump and Netanyahu. Poggio sees it clearly now. There is a widening perception that the Trump administration was drawn into a confrontation with Iran without fully weighing the consequences. The signs are there if you know where to look. Netanyahu recently gave an interview to American television in which he expressed surprise at Iran's actions in the Strait of Hormuz. To Poggio, that statement is revealing. It suggests Netanyahu may be trying to justify a conflict with Iran that he had sold to the Americans as something they could handle easily, something manageable. The gap between that promise and the reality on the ground is becoming harder to hide.
The longer the ceasefire remains out of reach, the more this rift will widen. Each failed negotiation, each round of talks that collapses, adds another layer of tension between the two leaders. Trump's transactional approach to foreign policy—the belief that any problem can be solved with the right deal, the right pressure, the right moment—is colliding with the actual complexity of the Middle East. And Netanyahu, who may have believed he could ride that approach to his advantage, is now discovering that the American president's attention span and strategic patience have limits. What happens when those limits are reached remains unclear. But the trajectory is unmistakable.
Notable Quotes
What we're seeing are immediate impulses from the American president, not long-term strategy. The deals announced are band-aids for situations far too complex for quick fixes.— Carlos Gustavo Poggio, political scientist at Berea College
Netanyahu appears to be justifying a conflict with Iran that he had sold to the Americans as something they could handle easily.— Carlos Gustavo Poggio, analyzing Netanyahu's recent television interview
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter that Trump claimed to negotiate directly with Hezbollah? Isn't that just diplomacy?
Because for decades, the U.S. treated Hezbollah as a terrorist organization you don't talk to. The fact that a president is publicly claiming to negotiate with them signals a fundamental shift in how America sees its role in the region. It's not just diplomacy—it's a break with established doctrine.
But if Hezbollah is independent from the Lebanese government, doesn't that make the negotiations pointless?
Not pointless, but much harder. You're trying to solve a problem with someone who doesn't control half the variables. It's like negotiating a ceasefire with a general who doesn't answer to the president. You might reach an agreement, but it won't hold.
What's the real issue between Trump and Netanyahu then?
Netanyahu sold Trump a war with Iran as something quick and manageable. Now it's neither. Netanyahu is on television saying he was surprised by Iran's moves, which is his way of saying: this isn't what I promised you. Trump is realizing he was led into something more complicated than he thought.
So Netanyahu miscalculated?
Or he calculated correctly for his own interests, but those interests don't align with Trump's anymore. That's when alliances start to crack.