In the tumultuous realm of international diplomacy, the current U.S. administration’s approach to negotiating with Iran is a case study in how not to win friends or influence people. President Trump’s reliance on bluster, threats, and coercive tactics is more likely to backfire than to secure a meaningful deal.
The U.S. negotiating team, led by figures like JD Vance, Steve Witkoff, and Jared Kushner, brings a New York real estate mindset to the table — transactional and lacking nuance. This approach has consistently alienated counterparts across various negotiations, from trade to arms control. The absence of technical experts and reliance on political appointees further weakens the U.S. position, undermining credibility and trust.
Iran, no stranger to enduring pressure, is likely to respond by playing the long game. With their strategic control over the Strait of Hormuz, the Iranians hold a critical card. Disrupting this vital waterway could impose significant economic pain on U.S. allies, shifting blame and highlighting the source of regional instability: Trump’s aggressive posturing.
As November midterms loom, Trump faces mounting domestic challenges. His administration’s reckless foreign policy could lead to electoral disaster, eroding GOP support and raising the spectre of impeachment. The stakes are high, and the consequences of failure in these negotiations could reverberate globally.
March 13, 2026
However, there is another possible outcome. Despite the challenges, both sides could reach a provisional or incremental agreement. This might involve short-term de-escalation measures, limited sanctions relief, and a framework for future negotiations. Increased third-party mediation and transparent verification measures could help build trust, maintaining a fragile status quo while working toward a more comprehensive solution.
Ultimately, Trump’s strategy may yield nothing but increased tension and instability. Yet, with careful diplomacy and international support, a path to a tentative peace remains within reach. The world watches as the clock ticks, hoping for reason to prevail over rhetoric.
Donald Trump’s presidency has been marked by a relentless pursuit of “energy dominance,” a policy prioritizing fossil fuels over renewable energy. His “Drill Baby Drill” rhetoric and dismantling of environmental protections have undeniably favoured the oil industry, aligning him with climate change skeptics and garnering substantial support from fossil fuel donors.
This approach offers short-term benefits for the oil sector but poses long-term risks for the U.S. economy and its global standing. As the world increasingly shifts towards renewable energy, Trump’s policies risk ceding leadership in the green energy sector to China, which has aggressively invested in clean technology.
Trump’s foreign policy further underscores his oil-centric worldview. His interventions in Venezuela and now Iran seem driven by a desire to control oil resources. In Venezuela, his efforts to topple Nicolás Maduro were partly successful, aligning with his strategy to expand U.S. influence over global oil markets.
However, the situation with Iran has become a strategic miscalculation. Trump’s administration underestimated Iran’s ability to leverage its control over the Strait of Hormuz, a critical chokepoint for global oil supply. The closure of the Strait has disrupted oil markets, leading to soaring prices and benefiting geopolitical rivals like Russia.
Commentators like Gwynne Dyer and Andrew Coyne highlight how Trump’s actions have not only failed to achieve their intended outcomes but have also trapped him in a geopolitical bind of his own making. The notion that military might alone could secure energy resources has backfired, as Iran’s asymmetric tactics have exposed the vulnerabilities of an over-reliance on oil.
The irony is stark: Trump’s attempt to use military force to ensure energy security has instead destabilized markets and weakened U.S. influence. His decisions have divided NATO, emboldened adversaries, and left the U.S. mired in conflict without a clear path forward.
In hindsight, Trump’s fixation on oil appears not just short-sighted but detrimental to U.S. strategic interests. His administration’s inability to foresee the complex geopolitical ramifications of its energy policy underscores a critical lack of strategic foresight. As the world pivots towards sustainable energy, Trump’s legacy may well be one of missed opportunities and strategic missteps that favoured immediate gains over long-term prosperity.
Cuba is at a crucial turning point as its regime faces increasing pressure from both external forces and internal challenges. The U.S. embargo, intensified under Donald Trump, has choked vital resources, leaving the Cuban people grappling with severe shortages of food, medicine, and fuel. This has exacerbated an already dire situation, where decades of isolation have fostered a cultural antipathy towards the U.S. and its capitalist ways.
Despite resisting the stark wealth gaps of capitalism, Cuba’s socialist experiment has kept most citizens on the edge of poverty, as highlighted in Robert Huish’s analysis. The country’s highly educated professional class remains, but the regime’s grip on press freedom and outdated structures have prevented modernization.
Canada, with its historical ties and empathy for Cuba, faces calls to provide humanitarian aid. As noted in The Globe and Mail, any support should be channeled through international organizations to avoid bolstering the regime. Canada has maintained a distinct policy from the U.S., reflecting a commitment to humanitarian principles rather than geopolitical gamesmanship.
In May 2014, Graeme and other Canadian editorial cartoonists travelled to Cuba
Reader comments echo the sentiment that while the Cuban government is repressive, the U.S.’s aggressive tactics are not the solution. Instead, Canada should focus on aiding the Cuban people, who are known for their creativity and resilience.
As Cuba confronts this crisis, it is essential that Canadians not only see themselves as beach patrons but as partners in humanity. Supporting Cubans through this difficult time aligns with our values and respects their right to determine their own destiny. The path forward should be theirs to choose, free from external imposition.
This is a pivotal moment, and Canada has the opportunity to stand with the Cuban people, helping them to envision a future beyond the shadows of “Socialismo o muerte.”
As missiles tore into Ukraine’s western regions this week and over 700 drones—many of them decoys—filled the skies in Russia’s largest single-night assault of the war, an equally surreal moment took shape in Washington: U.S. President Donald Trump, now in his second term, said he was “not happy” with Vladimir Putin. Days after halting vital weapons shipments to Ukraine, Trump then suggested the U.S. would need to send more.
To many observers, it was a whiplash moment—one that left allies wondering whether the man who has long praised autocrats might finally be taking a moral stance. But after years of watching Trump’s unpredictable and contradictory dealings with Russia’s president, few are ready to believe this signals a meaningful change.
Trump’s fascination with Putin has long been a matter of concern—not just in the U.S., but for all Western allies. From his first campaign through his presidency and into this second term, Trump has repeatedly cast Putin in a favourable light. He questioned the findings of his own intelligence community, downplayed election interference, and often portrayed Russia’s aggression as something other than what it is: calculated, criminal, and destructive.
The human cost of that delusion is clearer than ever. Ukraine has spent three years under relentless assault, and this latest drone barrage—targeting supply corridors and civilian areas alike—is part of a wider Russian strategy to break the country’s will before Western weapons can arrive. The aim isn’t military victory alone. It’s terror.
While Ukrainian forces shot down hundreds of drones, the sheer scale of the attack reveals how emboldened Russia has become. This isn’t a miscalculation or an act of desperation. It’s a statement. And so far, the response from Trump’s White House has wavered between ambiguity and performative outrage.
December 10, 2024
To hear Trump say he’s “not happy” with Putin after years of adulation is something. But what exactly? Does this signal an overdue pivot in American policy—or is it just another tactical feint designed to buy time or please one audience while signalling something else to another?
History suggests caution. Trump’s actions rarely align with his rhetoric. One day he praises Zelensky’s courage; the next he undermines NATO. One week he suspends weapons shipments; the next he promises to send more. In the face of an authoritarian threat like Putin’s Russia, such inconsistency isn’t strategy—it’s peril.
Even worse, there’s a pattern: every time Trump publicly criticizes Putin, the Kremlin seems to lash out more brutally. It’s as if Moscow views these rare rebukes not as deterrents but as invitations to escalate, to test Western resolve. With each fresh assault on Ukrainian soil, Putin appears to be saying, your president may talk, but we know he won’t act.
For those of us watching from outside the U.S.—from democracies that still place value on alliances, accountability, and the rule of law—it’s a bleak view. We are forced to wonder whether the world’s most powerful democracy has tethered its moral compass to the whims of one deeply erratic man.
Ukraine doesn’t need platitudes. It needs principled, sustained support. The international community—including the European Court of Human Rights, which this week formally held Russia responsible for grave violations—has made it clear that Putin’s war is not just unjust, it is criminal. He will not stop on his own. His aim is attrition—military, political, psychological.
If Trump truly wants peace, he must stop treating Putin like a misunderstood peer and start treating him like the war criminal he is. Words alone are no longer enough. The stakes are too high, and the cost in human lives too steep.
As drones strike deeper into Ukrainian cities and Russia readies its next wave, the question isn’t whether Trump is displeased. It’s whether he will finally act like a president of consequence—or remain a spectator in a theatre of atrocities.
The world cannot afford to wait much longer to find out.
Endless Bromance
Over the years, we’ve witnessed the tumultuous and often puzzling relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. It’s been a saga filled with speculation, headlines, and countless debates. And yet, here we are again, contemplating whether their so-called “bromance” is finally over. Spoiler alert: it’s not.
Let’s be real. This relationship has always been shrouded in mystery, with moments that leave us scratching our heads. One minute Trump is praising Putin, the next he’s issuing a mild rebuke, only to return to admiration shortly after. It’s like watching a soap opera, with each episode more confusing than the last.
The truth is, there’s more beneath the surface than meets the eye. Many argue, and not without reason, that Putin has something on Trump. Whether it’s political leverage, personal secrets, or something else entirely, the Russian leader has managed to maneuver Trump with an ease that should concern us all. For years, Trump has been as malleable as putty in Putin’s hands, bending and shaping to fit whatever narrative suits Moscow best.
So, while some may hope that recent tensions signal the end of this “bromance,” history tells us otherwise. It’s an on-again, off-again affair, a strategic dance where the steps are dictated by Moscow’s whims and Washington’s unpredictable responses.
In the end, the real question isn’t whether the bromance is over. It’s whether we’ll finally see leadership that prioritizes national and global interests over personal ones. Until then, we should remain cautious, critical, and ever watchful. Because in the world of international relations, appearances can be deceiving, and alliances are rarely what they seem.
If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for July 10, 2025, below! Oh, these notes register hardly any traffic. Kindly click like it if you do, it’ll encourage me to post more!
Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Wednesday March 9, 2022
U.S. and U.K. ban Russian oil imports in huge escalation of sanctions
December 24, 2018
President Joe Biden said the U.S. will ban imports of Russian fossil fuels including oil, a major escalation of Western efforts to hobble Russia’s economy that will further strain global crude markets.
“The United States is targeting the main artery of Russia’s economy,” Biden said Tuesday in Washington. “We will not be part of subsidizing Putin’s war.”
The U.S. move will be matched in part by the U.K., which announced a ban on Russian oil imports on Tuesday, though it will continue to allow natural gas and coal from the country. Other European nations that rely more heavily on Russian fuels will not participate.
Russian oil made up about 3 per cent of all the crude shipments that arrived in the U.S. last year. When other petroleum products are included, such as unfinished fuel oil that can be used to produce gasoline and diesel, Russia accounted for about 8 per cent of 2021 oil imports, though those shipments have also trended lower in recent months.
