President Donald Trump’s Middle Eastern tour is unfolding just as he hoped, with a Tuesday opportunity in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia to sign “roughly a dozen memorandums of understanding and letters of intent” amounting to $600 billion. The deals cover everything from defense and technology to cultural institutions like the Smithsonian. The signing ceremony offered a characteristically Trumpian portrait, as America’s “dealmaker-in-chief” inked his John Hancock to the bottom line on page after page.

Of course, dealmaking is not always the right course of action. Or, more precisely, negotiating toward a deal is not always the right course of action. Deals can be great when they work out. But, sometimes, dealmaking has negative side effects, restricts more effective courses of action, or seeks a resolution where there is none to be had. In international diplomacy, there are times when talking works, and times when it doesn’t. In the moment, it can be hard to discern which is which.

When Negotiating from a Strong position, or from a Weak Position

One time when it is wise to negotiate is when one holds a strong position. America can often lean on its economic or military strength to achieve its purposes without resorting to force. For instance, when the Trump administration threatened maximum economic pressure against Colombia, the socialist regime immediately surrendered and agreed to accept Colombian emigrants deported from the U.S. In Panama, a Chinese company agreed to sell its port interests rather than tangle with the U.S. after Trump demanded its departure.

Aside from select occasions that demand “unconditional surrender,” negotiating from a strong position often yields a far less costly outcome than resolving the same question via bullets or tariffs. The result is also less costly to the weaker party, making them more willing to accept.

Thus, Moses instructs Israel as they prepare to enter the land of Canaan as victorious conquerors, “When you draw near to a city to fight against it, offer terms of peace to it” (Deuteronomy 20:10). This is a humane policy for stronger nations to pursue.

By the same token, nations in a weaker position (which does not usually describe America) may also be wise to negotiate. They may have to swallow their pride and take the worse end of the bargain, but a diplomatic resolution may be far less costly than, say, losing a war. Jesus assumes this as a premise in underscoring the cost of discipleship: “What king, going out to encounter another king in war, will not sit down first and deliberate whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand? And if not, while the other is yet a great way off, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace” (Luke 14:31-32).

When Re-Solidifying Friendships

Another time that calls for negotiation is in re-solidifying old friendships. Last week, the White House announced “a new paradigm for our special relationship” with Great Britain, “on the 80th anniversary of Victory Day for World War II.”

Friendships can cool over time, and new sources of conflict can call old alliances into question. One biblical example of this is the relationship between Abraham, a nomadic chief with a literal army of servants (Genesis 14:14), and Abimelech, king of Gerar (Genesis 20:2). Soon after the two men parted with gifts and prophetic intercession (Genesis 20:14-18), their herdsmen quarreled over water rights, prompting the lords to establish a covenant involving oaths and sacrifices (Genesis 21:25-34).

When Resolving Conflict

Diplomatic talks are also an appropriate response to conflict. Resolving a dispute peacefully — or through some negotiated arrangement — could potentially forestall great bloodshed. Recently, the Trump administration mediated a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, after exchanges of fire between the nuclear-armed neighbors threatened to throw 20% of the world population into yet another hot war.

Biblical instances of such negotiations include 2 Samuel 20:16-22 and 2 Samuel 2:26-28. Negotiations are less successful elsewhere (Judges 11:12-28, 20:12-13). These are just a sampling of passages.

Not When Negotiating from a Weakening Position

However, just as there are times when opening diplomatic talks is wise, there are also occasions when entering into negotiations is a bad idea. One such time is when a person’s position is weakening. In either a strong position or a weak position, negotiating makes sense. But someone in a weakening position stands to dissipate their strength and weaken their leverage as negotiations drag out. It is better to use other tools at their disposal before the power of those tools fades away.

A current example is the Iranian negotiations. Iran is racing towards a nuclear weapon, while the U.S. is trying to prevent them from obtaining one. The surer — but costlier — way to do so is by bombing their nuclear facilities into oblivion. For now, the Trump administration has wagered that it can strike a deal with the ideological, Islamist Republic, enticing that regime to give up its dream of annihilating Israel. “The Iranians are going to try to draw out the timetable as long as possible,” said Iran expert Ilan Berman, in hopes that it can complete its nuclear weapons development before the talks expire.

One might say that David found himself in a weakening position when the Amalekites burned his city and kidnapped the inhabitants in 1 Samuel. The longer David delayed, the slimmer his chance of recovering the captives was. His weakened, angry men were in no mood to sit around waiting for a negotiated solution (1 Samuel 30:6). In this situation, negotiating would have simply robbed him of the advantage of surprise. So, instead, David executed a lightning pursuit across the desert, surprising the enemy while they were literally drunk with their victory (1 Samuel 30:16). Sometimes, a quick and decisive victory is better — and less costly — than any amount of negotiations.

Not When Jeopardizing Friendships

Nor is diplomacy advisable when it jeopardizes other relationships. When friendly allies are cut out of diplomatic talks, they often feel hurt and betrayed, like Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did when the U.S. announced a ceasefire with the Houthi terrorists in Yemen — a ceasefire from which Israeli interests were conspicuously absent.

In the twilight hour of Israel’s northern kingdom, Hoshea, the last king, a vassal ruler in the Assyrian empire, opened secret negotiations with Egypt to switch sides. The biblical author of Kings then narrates that “the king of Assyria found treachery in Hoshea, for he had sent messengers to So, king of Egypt” (2 Kings 17:4). This deception jeopardized his primary political relationship and led directly to Israel’s downfall. Roughly a century later, Zedekiah, the last king of Judah, made exactly the same mistake. “He rebelled against [the king of Babylon] by sending his ambassadors to Egypt” (Ezekiel 17:15), an error that led directly to Jerusalem’s destruction. Allies do not take kindly to being betrayed.

Not When Ignoring the Source of Conflict

Finally, diplomacy will prove fruitless when it fails to comprehend the underlying cause of the conflict. There are fewer biblical examples here, because political leaders are usually quite savvy in worldly wisdom — or else they seldom hold onto their power for long. Even the foolish, stubborn King Ahab could see through the pretext when King Ben-Hadad of Syria made increasingly humiliating demands upon him. “Mark, now, and see how this man is seeking trouble,” Ahab told his counselors, and they agreed that there was nothing left to do but fight (1 Kings 20:7-8).

This point is relevant to diplomatic efforts to resolve the war in Ukraine. Blaming Ukraine for Russia’s war of aggression, as some Trump administration officials have strangely tried to do, will not change the fact that Vladimir Putin wants to completely annex his sovereign neighbor. If the Trump administration wants to end the conflict, they must find some point of leverage that makes Russia willing to agree to sustainable peace terms.

Conclusion: Different Times Call for Different Courses of Action

“For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven,” reflects the preacher (Ecclesiastes 3:1). There is “a time to kill, and a time to heal … a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing … a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; a time to love, and a time to hate; a time for war, and a time for peace” (Ecclesiastes 3:3, 5, 7-8). There are times when talking works, and there are times when it doesn’t.

The Trump administration recognizes this reality. Last week, it secretly exfiltrated Venezuelan dissidents trapped in Caracas — a clear case where bold action was preferable to drawn out and likely fruitless diplomacy.

But the Trump administration could afford to observe this principle more often. The quest to restore American greatness will fall short of its potential if that greatness sits unused on the back shelf. Whispering with America’s adversaries will not change the fact that the only language they understand is power. If America is serious about confronting the aggressive ambitions of Iran, Russia, and China, there comes a point when the U.S. must communicate with something more forceful than words — when talking no longer works.