TOI correspondent from Washington: One day US President Donald Trump declared that protracted negotiations with Iran are “boring”. The next day he predicts a successful agreement “within a week”. On the other hand, he indicated that military action was still under consideration.Meanwhile, according to an explosive new report from Axios, Trump launched an expletive-laden attack on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning him he was “crazy” for expanding the war in Lebanon, and claiming: “If it wasn’t for me you’d be in jail. I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.”The result is that White House foreign policy increasingly resembles improvised theater — dramatic, unpredictable, and leaving allies and adversaries alike struggling to understand whether there is a script at all. A growing number of foreign affairs pundits are now saying that the administration has no idea where it is going, even as it brings a wrecking ball to alliances and partnerships around the world. The latest confusion arose when Trump publicly claimed that he had personally convinced both Hezbollah and Israel to stop firing on each other, insisting, “I talked to Hezbollah, and I said no firing, and I talked to Bibi, and said, no firing, and they both stopped firing on each other.” Yet within hours Netanyahu publicly hit back at Trump, saying, “If Hezbollah does not stop attacking our cities and civilians, Israel will attack terrorist targets in Beirut,” and announced that the Israeli military campaign in southern Lebanon would continue as planned.The conflicting messages highlight a growing problem facing the White House: America’s closest ally, who according to many pundits pushed the US into war against Iran, appears unwilling to tailor its military actions to Trump’s diplomatic timetable. The so-called Trump-Netanyahu feud is now causing quite a stir in Washington, where presidents have routinely vented anger about Israeli leaders in private while maintaining unwavering support in public. Former President Joe Biden reportedly referred to Netanyahu as “********” in private conversations and was said to have angrily cut off talks with him during the Gaza conflict, yet US military and diplomatic support continued uninterrupted.What makes the current episode different is that Trump’s frustration appears to be directly linked to his increasingly fragile efforts to negotiate with Iran even at the risk of making some kind of concessions that he did not anticipate and which Israel also does not want. According to Iran experts, Tehran, for its part, is pursuing a familiar strategy: offering a limited interim understanding that relieves economic pressure while avoiding major concessions on its nuclear program, much to Israel’s dismay. For Iran, time appears to be an ally; For Trump, this is becoming a trap despite his claims that he is in no rush to make a deal.Trump now faces contradictory pressures, having joined Israel’s military campaign against Iran earlier this year while insisting that he prefers a negotiated solution. Any concessions risk inviting charges that he has achieved a weaker deal than former President Obama. Yet failure to reach an agreement raises the prospect of deeper military involvement in a conflict they had promised would be short and decisive.Critics argue that the administration became involved in the conflict without any viable end game. Senator Chris Murphy succinctly summarized the criticism on Monday, saying that the administration had “no plan to end the war” and that Trump and Israeli hard-liners’ belief that limited strikes would collapse the Iranian regime did not materialize, leaving Washington “confused.”Increasingly, this perception is spreading beyond Washington. At an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council on Monday, Washington found itself unusually isolated. France, Britain, Russia, China and several non-permanent members called for de-escalation and criticized Israeli military operations in Lebanon. France’s ambassador warned that Israel was making “a major strategic mistake”, while Britain’s representative described Israel’s actions as “reckless and disproportionate”.“The US focused on blaming Iran and Hezbollah.For decades, Washington has portrayed itself as an indispensable stabilizing force in the international system. But increasingly, analysts like Ian Bremmer and Jeffrey Sachs are warning that the image is rapidly deteriorating, raising concerns about the US being seen as a disruptive force rather than a stabilizing one. Even countries traditionally friendly to both countries like India are feeling uneasy.New Delhi has painstakingly built strategic partnerships with both Washington and Israel over the past two decades. Yet the prolonged conflict has raised energy costs, disrupted trade routes and increased economic uncertainty, leaving policymakers privately wondering why they are paying an economic price for a war whose strategic objectives remain elusive, and whether the United States has any coherent strategy to end the crisis.