The President Who Cried Wolf: The Trouble With Trump’s Oman Threats | Opinion

President Donald Trump warned Fox News that if Oman interferes, they will bomb the country severely. This is a common response to Iran's actions, but Oman is actually a U.S. ally. Is it wise to use such threats? What are the potential consequences of constantly using this language, especially for a president who often seems disconnected from reality?

As we deal with the complex situation in the Persian Gulf, it's time to consider a more measured approach, but also to be clearer in our messaging. Oman has long been a smart diplomat, balancing close ties with the U.S., Gulf monarchies, and maintaining enough independence to communicate with those Washington cannot reach. It was the first Gulf country to welcome an Israeli leader and has avoided joining the Abraham Accords.

This unique position has helped keep Oman stable and secure, providing a diplomatic link between the U.S. and Iran. However, Oman's recent actions appear to be a departure from this pattern. Currently, Muscat is reportedly in talks with Tehran about reopening the strategic Strait of Hormuz, a critical waterway for global energy flows.

If successful, this could allow Iran to play a role in regulating shipping and potentially involve commercial vessels in payment schemes. The details remain unclear, but any such move would disrupt world trade and set off a chain reaction at other chokepoints like the Bab el-Mandeb, Bosporus, Strait of Malacca, and others. It's clear that this approach cannot continue.

Trump is justified in his anger, but his method of expressing this anger is ineffective. His aggressive rhetoric, which once made headlines, now sounds desperate and unconvincing. By constantly threatening, he risks appearing desperate and weak. Iran may see his words as a sign of desperation and a willingness to go to war. The United States has an immense military capability, but using it should be a last resort, not a first tactic.

Threatening to bomb Oman, a key ally that houses U.S. military assets and has long served as a bridge between Washington and Tehran, is absurd. It makes the president seem unserious and weak. Theodore Roosevelt famously advised presidents to "speak softly and carry a big stick." Trump certainly has a formidable military, but his frequent threats undermine any perceived strength.

He is so impulsive and attention-seeking that even his grandiose claims, like annexing Greenland or becoming the 51st state, lose credibility over time. His approach is similar to what makes his promises to the letter seem less meaningful. He is currently dealing with an Iranian regime that has ignored repeated warnings and failed to see reason.

Each new reckless promise from Trump emboldens Iran and its allies. Oman has its own reasons to keep the Strait of Hormuz open and maintain relations with the U.S. Its economy depends on energy and international trade, and it enjoys a strong security relationship with Washington. Oman also has significant oil and gas reserves and a high standard of living.

This isn't a struggling nation seeking aid. The U.S. has considerable leverage over Oman, but much of it would be ineffective if used destructively. Washington can use diplomatic and economic influence to make clear that Oman's actions have consequences, while still allowing Oman a path to reconciliation. Bombing Oman would be counterproductive.

It would damage a valuable partnership, threaten U.S. military access, undermine diplomatic efforts with Iran, and potentially convince Oman to align more closely with Tehran. It would turn a trade dispute into a much larger geopolitical crisis. And it would portray the U.S. as an angry, ineffective superpower rather than a confident one.

That is why it's unlikely to happen, and why Trump's threat is at risk of looking empty. Instead, Washington should approach Oman as a friend who has made a serious mistake. The message should be clear: America is a great ally to have, but also a powerful country to be cautious around. Oman has wisely recognized the difference for decades. This is what credible deterrence looks like.