"If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

Every country has its own longstanding foreign policies and international agreements that leaders must abide by. These are red lines that have been drawn in favor of national interests and designed by years if not decades of relations with foreign countries. The continuation of these policies is vital for a country's credibility in the global arena and achieving the goals of the state. Very rarely does a leader come along and make bold deviations from state policies and act against national interests and international law. However, U.S. President Donald Trump set off a time bomb when he announced his decision to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognize the eternal city as the capital of Israel, overturning policies that date back to President Harry Truman.Trump's declaration has removed a cornerstone of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, making an internationally agreed upon two-state solution nearly impossible to achieve. Many of the president's predecessors had made similar campaign promises during their journeys to the White House, but once faced with the responsibilities of the Oval Office and the repercussions of such a decision, these presidents opted to steer clear of the issue. As Trump nears the one year mark of his administration, his decisions to exit the Paris climate accord, decertify the Iran nuclear deal, not participate in the Astana talks and most recently recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, raises the question of whether America has abandoned diplomacy

The status of Jerusalem and international consensus

Jerusalem is home to some of the holiest sites in Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Due to its unique religious significance, the U.N. General Assembly decided in 1947 to keep Jerusalem a separated body when it voted to divide historic Palestine into two states, one Arab and one Jewish. The city was officially divided into east and west Jerusalem by the "green line" as a condition of the 1949 Armistice Agreements. Jordan took control of east Jerusalem while Israel moved its government to the western half. Israel captured and annexed east Jerusalem after defeating Arab forces in the Six-Days War of 1967. The unified city of Jerusalem was designated as the capital of Israel in 1980. A series of agreements, better known as the Oslo Accords, were signed by both Israeli and Palestinian officials in 1993, stipulating that the permanent status of Jerusalem would only be decided in negotiations between both parties.

The general international consensus regarding Jerusalem is that Israel is an occupying force. The global community views the occupation as a violation of the international status of Jerusalem as declared by the U.N. General Assembly. The EU reiterated this stance earlier this week when top diplomat Federica Mogherini said: "We believe that the only realistic solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestine is based on two states with Jerusalem as the capital of both."

The end of the two-state solution

The White House's perspective regarding this issue is that the move may bring new momentum to the resumption of peace negotiations between Palestinians and Israelis. The Trump administration is hoping that Palestinians will feel a sense of urgency and believe that the longer they wait the more they stand to lose. However, Trump's disregard for international law and his miscalculation of the global community's unity regarding the status of Jerusalem will most likely result in this action backfiring and rendering the U.S. a biased mediator in bilateral talks between Israelis and Palestinians. The international community has spent decades working on a two-state solution, and as with all negotiations, a successful outcome can only be achieved if both sides are equal at the table. Unfortunately, this move undermines all the progress that has been made, and if the U.S. can convince other countries to follow suit, it can effectively kill any possibility for a two-state solution.

Trump's "America First" policies have led to a decoupling from the international community, namely its closest ally, the European Union. The EU has conveyed strong objections to Trump's Jerusalem decision, explaining that it could destabilize the region. Both parties have also been at loggerheads with one another over Trump's decision to abandon the Paris climate Accord and his decertification of the Iran nuclear deal. While America has chosen to isolate itself from both international agreements, which were forged by former U.S. President Barrack Obama, the EU has decided to honor its commitments and has begun looking elsewhere for new partners. China and Russia have been the main beneficiaries, as they have actively tried to fill the power vacuum. Russia has taken big steps in furthering its relations with the Middle East, a region once dominated by the U.S.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has successfully played the role of mediator, bringing together regional powerhouses and once rival countries Turkey and Iran for the Astana and Sochi talks. These meetings have been successful, resulting in the creation of de-escalation zones and showing the world that meaningful Middle Eastern foreign policy decisions can be made without the U.S.

China has also stepped up to fill the role of leader, calling a high-level meeting of energy ministers in Beijing to actively discuss how to deploy clean energy and combat climate change, a week after Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris accord. China has also been actively increasing its presence in Africa with major infrastructure investments and has become an integral part of negotiations with North Korea. Turkey is another beneficiary of U.S. foreign policy debacles as President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rallied Muslim-majority countries in Istanbul at an emergency meeting of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) in a show of solidarity with Palestine. Erdoğan has also actively voiced his dismay at the U.S. arming proxy groups in Syria such as the People's Protection Units (YPG), which is an extension of the globally recognized PKK terrorist group.What is causing the shift in U.S. foreign policy?As America's new foreign policy shift continues to estrange its relationships with its allies and erode U.S. credibility overseas, the international community has shown resilience in finding alternative means and partners to solve its problems. I believe that this bizarre U-turn in longstanding foreign policy can be traced to three main factors. The obvious main reason is Trump's lack of experience. While branding himself the ultimate dealmaker, the former businessman has a tendency to look at international agreements as business deals.

However, unlike emotionless companies, the entities that he is dealing with are countries that have millions of citizens, their own national interests and a long history of complex foreign relations. In the world of foreign policy, the bottom line does not always have to register a profit for a deal to be considered successful. The second factor is the militarization of U.S. politics. Since Trump has entered the White House, there has been an inordinate amount of top-level military brass appointed to cabinet-level positions. Gen. H.R. McMaster was appointed national security advisor, Gen. John Kelly serves as chief of staff and Gen. James Mattis is secretary of defense, a position almost always designated for civilians. The last time there were three generals in cabinet positions was during World War II in President Harry Truman's cabinet, and once before that after the Civil War in President Ulysses S. Grant's cabinet. Having so many men, who have spent a lifetime training for war, in close proximity to the president cannot be healthy for U.S. foreign policy. As the saying goes, if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. The final reason is the mass exodus of top-level diplomats from the U.S. State Department. More than 100 senior foreign service officers have been dismissed or resigned since Trump's inauguration. Diplomacy is an arena in experience, leadership and confidence are critical to successfully maintain healthy foreign relations. Replacing career diplomats with junior-level appointees destroys credibility and hampers the continuation of critical policies that have been passed down from previous administrations. A president who lacks foreign policy experience coupled with a cabinet full of military hawks and a rookie State Department could turn into a recipe for disaster.

*Editor at TRT World