What tools does a leader use to get what he or she wants—no matter how outrageous the demand may sound?

In recent years we have heard proposals that once would have been dismissed as fringe fantasy: overtures to authoritarian regimes for oil, musings about territorial acquisitions in far-off islands, and relentless rhetoric aimed at immigrants and outsiders as convenient political targets. But the real story is not the strangeness of the ideas themselves. It is the method behind them.

Some defenders say the U.S. president’s behavior is merely the product of a blunt personality—abrasive, but fundamentally harmless. That interpretation misses the point. The issue is not tone. It is the systematic use of pressure.

The pattern is unmistakable. Institutions meant to uphold the rule of law increasingly resemble instruments of intimidation. Federal authority is used less as a tool of governance and more as a form of leverage. In such an atmosphere, politics becomes less about persuasion and more about force.

Extortion, coercion, and bribery—these are the instruments that define the president’s playbook.

Nowhere is that style more visible than in the unfolding confrontation with Iran.

The conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States has already rippled across the region, with missile strikes, attacks on Gulf infrastructure, and threats to global energy supplies. The Strait of Hormuz—a narrow maritime corridor through which a significant share of the world’s oil flows—has once again become a geopolitical choke point.

But this is not merely a military confrontation. It is a test of how power is exercised.

Rather than assembling a coherent diplomatic coalition, the administration has leaned heavily on pressure. Allies are told they must fall in line, deploy ships, and support military aims whose long-term goals are still murky. Some governments have hesitated, weighing the risks of escalation and the consequences of a wider war.

Their hesitation has not been treated as legitimate debate. Instead, it has been treated as disloyalty.

Warnings that allies face a “very bad future” if they do not support U.S. efforts reveal the same instinct visible in domestic politics: disagreement is framed not as a difference of judgment but as a failure of allegiance.

International alliances do not work that way.

NATO was never designed to serve as a personal cheering section for any president. It was built on shared interests and collective security. Yet the current approach risks transforming alliances into loyalty tests.

Iran, meanwhile, thrives in such an environment of division. Tehran’s strategy has long relied on exploiting fractures among Western and regional partners. Escalation—through missile strikes, proxy attacks, and threats to shipping lanes—draws its strength from disunity among those who oppose it.

Pressure meets pressure. Escalation meets escalation. And the danger is that no one is entirely in control of the spiral.

For Israelis watching events unfold, the stakes are not abstract. Iran’s nuclear ambitions, expanding missile arsenal, and network of regional proxies are a real and immediate threat. Israel cannot afford complacency about Tehran’s intentions.

But confronting that threat requires something more durable than pressure politics. It requires strategy, clarity of purpose, and alliances built on trust rather than intimidation. Coercion may produce short-term compliance. It rarely produces lasting stability.

History teaches a sobering lesson: the strongest alliances are not the ones forced into obedience, but the ones that choose to stand together because they believe in a common purpose.

The struggle against Iran’s aggression will not be won through bluster or loyalty to tests. It will be won through unity, credibility, and leadership that persuades rather than threatens.

Because in the end, the real test is not whether pressure can force allies to comply . . . It is whether the free world can remain united long enough to prevail.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)