A prominent conservative publication warned Tuesday that President Donald Trump has lost the ability to be taken "seriously," arguing that this erosion of credibility is not only damaging the United States' global standing but also deepening a crisis in the Middle East with lasting repercussions.

In a sharply worded essay published by The American Conservative — a magazine founded in 2002 that has long championed a realist, non-interventionist approach to foreign policy — managing editor Jude Russo writes that "people have started to notice that the administration has a propensity for extravagant threats followed by equally extravagant walkbacks, often in concert with the weekly operations of the markets." Russo points to Trump's claim last week that the U.S. would soon strike Iran "hard," a reference to a widely discussed plan to attack the Pickaxe Mountain nuclear site. White House officials had leaked the operation as imminent, even as commentators predicted it would never materialize.

"I'd submit that this is a problem," Russo writes. "America's diplomatic credibility is not looking too good. The recurring revision of previously agreed-upon premises, the constant toggling between mediation channels, and most of all the apparent use of negotiations as cover for surprise attacks have made it difficult for other parties to take the U.S. at its word."

Russo notes that the credibility problem extends beyond adversaries such as Venezuela and Iran. Two weeks ago, following the signing of an agreement with Saudi Arabia for the development of a civilian nuclear program, Trump published a social media post retroactively conditioning the deal on Saudi normalization of ties with Israel — a stipulation that, given prevailing sentiment on the Arab street, effectively amounts to scuttling the agreement.

According to Russo, this "loss of diplomatic credibility" means the U.S. will be compelled to rely "more heavily on the application of force at a time when it was hoping to rely on this less." Trump's hollow threats compound the problem: "As threats become less effective, there will be pressure to follow through on them to inflict coercion and, secondarily, to restore their credibility."

The result, Russo argues, is that "everything that isn't physical coercion is being sapped of its power, and force is a limited, expensive, and messy technique; indeed, the fact that we have not fully committed ourselves to this path is a testament to how unpleasant even the authors of this war find its consequences."

"There's a lesson here," Russo asserts. "Hypocrisy, deception and a touch of unpredictability are no doubt useful, even necessary tools of statecraft. As most people who have been through normal childhoods know, though, the efficacy of a lie depends on the credibility of its teller ... Your word must be your bond not because of the divine decrees of Moses, St. Paul, and Dale Carnegie, but because it's the only way human systems can work ... Sometimes, honesty is the best politics."

Russo cites a further example from Monday, when it was reported that "Iranian elites are growing skeptical that a deal with the United States is even possible — that they believe the U.S. is for structural reasons unable to commit to any sort of agreement that it will not subsequently undermine."

Russo concludes with an unequivocal warning: "This is dangerous; a semi-frozen conflict in the Middle East straining the world economy indefinitely is not an ideal outcome. And, of course, it was avoidable. But the question now is whether American negotiating credit can be salvaged, perhaps with some confidence-building measures like prompt follow-through on some of the concessive parts of the June MOU — sanctions relief and the like — or, at the minimum, by not issuing apocalyptic but empty threats. It may not yet be too late to turn over a new leaf, but it's getting there."