When the world teeters on the brink of another full-scale regional war, diplomacy—however imperfect—becomes the thin thread that prevents catastrophe. It is precisely during these moments that multilateral institutions like the Group of Seven (G7) must function with unity, sobriety and respect for each other’s contributions.
Unfortunately, the latest summit in Canada revealed more fissures than cohesion, and not due to structural disagreement on trade, finance or even Ukraine. Rather, it was the unnecessarily sharp personal rebuke issued by US President Donald Trump against French President Emmanuel Macron that punctured the diplomatic atmosphere.
At issue was Macron’s assertion to reporters that Trump was leaving the G7 early to potentially broker a ceasefire between Israel and Iran. “There is indeed an offer to meet and exchange,” Macron said, adding that the United States had “assured they will find a ceasefire and since they can pressure Israel, things may change.”
Whether borne of informed speculation or confidential briefings, Macron’s tone was hopeful, hinting that the United States—despite its own political tumult—might bring its considerable leverage to bear in ending a volatile conflict in the Middle East.
Trump, however, was quick to scoff at Macron’s remarks, dismissing them as “wrong,” and asserting that his abrupt departure from the G7 had nothing to do with any potential ceasefire.
In a statement posted to his own platform, Social Truth, Trump ominously advised, “Everyone should evacuate from Tehran”—a message that may have caused more confusion than clarity, not least for the citizens of Tehran and the diplomats working to contain hostilities.
But Trump’s derision goes far beyond a semantic quarrel. It points to a deeper pattern of undermining traditional allies, resisting the norms of collective diplomacy and reducing serious multilateral efforts to public theater.
The G7, for all its shortcomings, has historically operated on a delicate balance of peer respect and strategic coordination. To have one of its most powerful members lash out against another, particularly when the latter is attempting to steer attention toward peace efforts, corrodes that balance.
This is not the first time Trump has treated France—and by extension, Europe—as an adversary rather than a partner. In previous summits, he dismissed the importance of NATO, mocked French concerns over climate change, and refused to support multilateral trade mechanisms that form the bedrock of European economic stability.
Yet what happened in Canada is different: it occurred not merely against the backdrop of a policy disagreement but amid the specter of regional war.
Israel and Iran are currently in a perilous dance of escalation. With Israeli strikes reportedly targeting Iranian military sites and Iran retaliating via drone and missile launches, the region is careening toward a wider confrontation.
A war that could suck in neighboring states, global energy markets and even non-regional actors like Russia and China. It is precisely in such moments that the G7 must act as a stabilizing force—not an arena of personal vendettas.
To suggest that Macron was out of line for voicing what many suspected—that Trump’s early exit may have been motivated by a secret diplomatic mission—is disingenuous. Even if Macron’s remarks were premature, they reflected a yearning for progress, not a challenge to Trump’s authority.
The French president, after all, is a seasoned leader who understands the need for discretion but also recognizes the value of positive signaling. His comment was an opening, an invitation for diplomacy to flourish. Trump chose instead to shut that window with a tweet and a rebuke.
Moreover, Trump’s declaration that “everyone should evacuate from Tehran” only adds to the confusion. What does it signal? An imminent strike? A covert operation gone awry? Or merely another instance of bluster designed to unnerve adversaries and allies alike?
In the absence of clarity, the message contributes to anxiety, not resolution. For diplomats in the region, such ambiguity can be paralyzing. For ordinary citizens in Tehran, it may very well provoke panic.
One must also question the wisdom of using a social media post to relay potential security warnings, rather than relying on established diplomatic channels. The State Department or the National Security Council is equipped to issue warnings with nuance and legal authority. When leaders bypass these institutions to score points or spread fear, the result is a governance vacuum.
Beyond the immediate implications, this latest episode raises a larger concern about the erosion of diplomatic norms in the post-2020 world order.
The G7 was once a forum for proactive global leadership: addressing financial crises, coordinating humanitarian relief, and charting climate policy. Today, it often appears more performative than practical, with headline-grabbing gestures replacing substantive commitments.
Trump’s consistent sidelining of allies, whether France, Germany, Canada, or Japan, has contributed to this decline. His transactional worldview—where friends are judged not by shared values but by personal loyalty—makes stable cooperation difficult.
By treating Macron’s olive branch as an insult, Trump not only insults France but signals to the rest of the G7 that independent thought will be met with disdain.
This is a dangerous precedent. For when diplomacy becomes personalized and weaponized, its primary function—to reduce conflict through dialogue—evaporates. If leaders at the G7 cannot even agree on the tone of their own statements, let alone on a strategy for peace in the Middle East, then the institution is at risk of irrelevance.
To be clear, Macron is not beyond critique. His own record on foreign policy has been mixed. But in this instance, his attempt to steer global attention toward a ceasefire should be viewed not as meddling, but as leadership.
That Trump cannot—or will not—see this speaks volumes about his priorities.
If President Trump is indeed in a position to facilitate a ceasefire between Israel and Iran, then let him proceed. But undermining an ally who voices hope for that possibility serves no one—not the G7, not the Middle East and certainly not the credibility of the United States on the global stage.
In diplomacy, perception matters as much as action. And at this critical moment, the perception is clear: Trump prefers deflection over dialogue, and derision over diplomacy.
Phar Kim Beng, PhD, is professor of ASEAN Studies, International Islamic University Malaysia, and Cambridge Commonwealth Scholar
Ruhanas Harun is professor at the Department of Defense and Strategic Studies, National Defense University Malaysia.
