Perhaps from years of real estate dealings, President Donald Trump believes that his ‘art of the deal’ can be applied to foreign policy. Flattery, unfulfillable promises, threats and, as necessary, ultimatums will lead to successful negotiations. Tragically, as other presidents believed that democracy could be applied to Vietnam and more recently, to Afghanistan and Iraq, exporting the Trumpian art of the deal may be equally flawed and unworkable. As of last Thursday, President Trump seemingly abandoned his quest for a Nobel Peace Prize by abruptly cancelling the June 12 Summit with North Korea’s Kim Jong Un. In a rather bizarre short letter to Kim, Trump left both the door open to further negotiations, while reminding North Korea of American nuclear might, as if this threat might actually force a new summit. Why the President decided to cancel may be as quixotic as his instant decision to meet Mr Kim was made without any time to analyse and think through all the consequences and downsides. Many have speculated why. Using President Trump’s real estate history as a lodestone to predict his next steps, this cancellation could be a negotiating ploy, designed to induce Kim to accept more stringent terms in a future meeting. That North Korea sent no representatives to meet with US counterparts in Singapore to discuss the now cancelled summit clearly wasn’t conducive to further talks. In that regard, the President was correct to respond to the diplomatic snub. It could be that wiser hands finally convinced the president that a summit at this stage was a no win situation. North Korea was not about to ‘de-nuclearise’ anytime soon. Failure to gain this agreement would leave the US with no good choices, since the diplomatic option was lost. No matter how effective US forces might be, the military option still risked the use of weapons of mass destructions and potentially hundreds of thousands of casualties on both sides of the 38th parallel. Now, instead of a Nobel Prize, the administration faces two crises of its own making. Last week, following Trump’s unilateral abrogation of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) without cause, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo issued ‘12 demands’ that Iran must meet if the re-imposition of sanctions were to be lifted. These demands ranged from Iran forgoing all Uranium enrichment to halting missile programs and allowing intrusive inspections of its military facilities and bases. Clearly, these demands are unacceptable to Tehran. In the space of a week, the President has upped the ante with both Iran and North Korea, raising the risk of military action on two fronts. No doubt, the Pentagon has contingency plans for attacking the nuclear facilities in both Iran and North Korea. North Korea already possesses some number of nuclear weapons along with some delivery capacity as well as chemical and probably biological agents. These are reinforced with a million man army and tens of thousands of artillery pieces and rockets within striking distance of Seoul. History may not repeat itself. But President Trump’s actions could suffer from the same strategic miscalculations that turned the Iraq incursion of March 2003 into a catastrophe — incorrect intelligence and the absence of a Plan B To complicate matters, North Korea and China have a mutual defence treaty dating back to 1961. Whether China would intervene in the event of an American attack is problematic. But surely did so in 1950 when UN forces under General Douglas MacArthur were racing towards the Yalu River. While Iran does not possess weapons of mass destruction, it can blockade the Strait of Hormuz. War games have shown that Iran musters sufficient military force to threaten both US and allied warships and bases in the Gulf, a risk that cannot be overlooked. Iran is also capable of mobilising proxy forces, including Hezbollah as well as Shia militias. History may not repeat itself. But President Trump’s actions could suffer from the same strategic miscalculations that turned the Iraq incursion of March 2003 into a catastrophe — incorrect intelligence and the absence of a Plan B. Should the two Trump ultimatums to North Korea and Iran fail to produce successful talks, what will the White House do next? When confronted with bad choices, too often the US relied on military force. The second Tonkin Gulf incident in 1964 never occurred. Yet, Congress overwhelmingly approved a resolution for a war that we lost. After 9/11, a war on terror was declared that is still yet to be won. Without a Plan B, this White House may be headed on parallel courses with North Korea and Iran. The writer has Served on the Senior Advisory Group for Supreme Allied Commander Europe (2004-2016) and is currently Senior Advisor at Washington DC’s Atlantic Council, chairman of two private companies and principal author of the doctrine of shock and awe. A former naval person, he commanded a destroyer in the Persian Gulf and led over 150 missions and operations in Vietnam as a Swift Boat skipper. His latest book is Anatomy of Failure: Why America Has Lost Every War It Starts. The writer can be reached on Twitter @harlankullman Published in Daily Times, June 1st 2018.