WASHINGTON – In an unconventional move signaling a heightened emphasis on projecting strength alongside diplomatic efforts, President Donald Trump has begun deploying senior military leaders into direct negotiations concerning both Iran’s nuclear program and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. The decision, reported , marks a departure from traditional diplomatic protocols and reflects a willingness to upend established foreign policy norms.
Admiral Brad Cooper, commander of U.S. Central Command, participated in indirect talks with Iranian representatives in Muscat, Oman, . His presence, notably in full dress uniform, was described by analysts as a deliberate demonstration of U.S. Military capability and resolve. Simultaneously, Army Secretary Dan Driscoll continued his role as a key negotiator in discussions aimed at resolving the Russia-Ukraine war, working to maintain dialogue between Ukrainian officials and U.S. Envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner.
The administration’s reliance on military figures in these sensitive negotiations has prompted debate among foreign policy experts. Elisa Ewers, a former national security official, suggested the move indicates a devaluation of traditional diplomatic channels and an overreliance on military solutions. “It often takes an enormous amount of time, investment and hard work to get to the point where you can say diplomacy has succeeded,” she stated, adding that “not every nail needs a hammer.”
However, others point to historical precedents for involving military leaders in arms control talks, citing examples from the Cold War. Eliot Cohen, a former counselor of the State Department, noted that while Driscoll’s involvement was unusual given his role as a civilian leader, presidents have historically utilized trusted individuals – regardless of their conventional diplomatic background – as emissaries. “There’s a long tradition of American presidents using unusual people as emissaries if they trust them and think they can deliver the message,” Cohen said.
The talks in Oman are aimed at de-escalating tensions with Iran, which have been exacerbated by the U.S. Military buildup in the region following Tehran’s crackdown on protests. President Trump characterized the discussions as “very good” and indicated plans for further talks next week, while simultaneously warning of “very steep” consequences should Iran fail to reach an agreement on its nuclear program. This dual approach – dialogue coupled with the threat of force – underscores the administration’s strategy.
Analysts suggest Cooper’s presence was intended to “signal resolve and to intimidate,” according to Michael O’Hanlon of the Brookings Institution. He added that the move was likely more symbolic than substantive, given the already strained relationship between the U.S. And Iran. However, Michael Singh, managing director at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, emphasized Cooper’s potential value in providing technical expertise. He noted that Witkoff and Kushner lack specialized knowledge of Iran’s nuclear program, while Cooper has access to military experts capable of evaluating proposed concessions.
Cooper’s background, including detailed testimony on Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities during his nomination hearing, further supports this assessment. His expertise offers a crucial dimension to the negotiations, allowing for a more informed assessment of potential agreements.
In Ukraine, Army Secretary Driscoll’s role has evolved into that of a liaison, fostering communication between Ukrainian officials and the U.S. Negotiating team. His military background and experience as an armor officer – including a deployment to Iraq from to – have proven valuable in maintaining dialogue and building rapport. Driscoll’s participation in talks in Abu Dhabi, alongside U.S. General Alexus Grynkewich, also led to the reestablishment of high-level military-to-military dialogue between the United States and Russia – a significant development after a four-year hiatus.
The White House has not yet commented on the rationale behind deploying military leaders into these diplomatic roles. However, the move clearly signals a shift in the administration’s approach to foreign policy, prioritizing a demonstration of strength and leveraging military expertise alongside traditional diplomatic efforts. The long-term implications of this strategy remain to be seen, but it represents a notable departure from conventional practices and a willingness to challenge established norms in pursuit of U.S. Foreign policy objectives.
