Victor Davis Hanson argues that Donald Trump’s unconventional negotiating style has repeatedly produced geopolitical gains despite generating controversy over his rhetoric, tactics, and willingness to make demands that initially appear extreme.

Hanson described Trump’s method as a deliberate effort to throw negotiating partners off balance before ultimately settling on a deal that gives the United States more leverage than it had at the start.

"There's been an ongoing controversy over Donald Trump for the last decade, both when he appeared on the escalator in 2015, the campaign, the first term, the wilderness years, and the first two years of his second administration. It works out like this: He has an art-of-the-deal style, where he is bombastic, that he says wild things. He puts his opponents, his partners, whatever the situation is that he's across the table from, off balance. He demands things that are ludicrous. People are shocked. They criticize him, and then the negotiations continue, and Donald Trump gets an edge, maybe a 52, 53 percent edge over the original request."

Hanson said the debate surrounding Trump often focuses less on the outcome of negotiations and more on the abrasive process used to reach them.

Gold. Upgraded. Buy real gold from $1. Store it in America. Sell it with one click.

"They look at the result of the negotiations, and they're impressed, especially if you're Americans. But they also say the methodology clouds the achievement. Let's see if that's a legitimate criticism."

One example Hanson cited was Panama. He argued that Chinese-affiliated companies had gained troubling influence around the Panama Canal and said Trump responded with threats that dramatically shifted the diplomatic conversation.

"When he entered office, Panama was essentially being controlled at its entry and exits in violation of the Panama Canal Treaty by Chinese-affiliated companies, and they had grandiose designs basically to take over the canal, he railed, he screamed, he threatened to go in and take it. He said the canal should go back to the United States."

Hanson then pointed to broader developments in Latin America, arguing that much of the region has moved toward governments that are friendlier to the United States.

This Could Be the Most Important Video Gun Owners Watch All Year

"Now Canada is a close ally of the United States. All of Latin America is flipping. Of the 32 nations, I think about 27 are pro-American, are capitalist, are democratic, are all three. The pink tide is over in Latin America."

Greenland, Hanson argued, provides another example of Trump starting with an extreme position before arriving at a more practical strategic arrangement. He said Trump’s threats prompted Denmark to take Greenland’s security and economic importance more seriously.

"So he says, the Danes don't have the wherewithal. Maybe we should just take it. Everybody is appalled. Denmark gets furious."

According to Hanson, the rhetoric eventually gave way to an arrangement he considers stronger than what existed before.

"In other words, Donald Trump tunes down the rhetoric, and lo and behold, we now have a deal, and the deal is far better than the prior 1951 deal."

He argued that the result benefits multiple parties by increasing American security involvement while leaving Denmark’s sovereignty intact and bringing new economic activity to Greenland.

"Greenland is happy because they're not going to see a lot of Americans, but they're going to get a lot of American money through a booming military economy. Denmark is happy because they can say they're still a colonial power and they control this huge continental island that's in North America and which is closer to New York than it is to Copenhagen."

Hanson applied the same framework to Canada, saying Trump’s rhetoric about making Alberta or Canada part of the United States should be understood as a negotiating tactic rather than a literal policy goal.

"Nobody in the United States wants that, least of all Trump. The last thing the Republican conservative MAGA Trump people want is a left-wing Canada with 40 million people. That would be another California. So that was the art of the deal again."

He predicted that the ultimate result would involve Canadian concessions on trade, Chinese goods, digital media rules and agricultural purchases.

"When it's all said and done, and Prime Minister Carney gets his Nobel Prize, or whatever he wants, the deal is going to be this: Canada will cut a deal."

Hanson also highlighted NATO as perhaps the clearest example of Trump using pressure to force changes that previous administrations had sought but failed to achieve.

"When Donald Trump came in, only six in 2017, only six nations had pledged. They had informally in 2006, and formally a few years later, said that everybody was going to spend 2% of GDP."

He noted that Barack Obama had also criticized NATO members for failing to carry their share of defense spending, but Hanson argued that Trump’s threats produced a greater shift.

"So, what is the theme again? Well, couldn't he have been more polite, like Obama or Biden? Well, neither one of them got NATO to meet their goals, which were good for for NATO."

Hanson said Trump has since pushed NATO members toward even higher defense spending targets, arguing that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine reinforced Trump’s earlier warnings about European military weakness and dependence on Russian energy.

He concluded that critics are ultimately left with a choice between judging Trump primarily by his tone or by the results Hanson believes his negotiating style has produced.

"Was it worth it? You can decide. Donald Trump polarized a lot of people with his tough talk, but would you rather have somebody who was abrasive and accomplished the following, or would you want someone mellifluous like oh, Barack Obama or Bill Clinton and could not achieve any of these achievements, which were not just good for the United States, but were good for the Western alliance in general."

WATCH:

Gold is the oldest answer. SoundMoney makes owning it as easy as the apps you already use.

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of LifeZette. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.