Listening to Trump and Starmer, as a former teacher, I couldn’t help but notice how they’re both using psychologies long discredited in teaching – they just don’t work.

I have a familiar, a raven on my shoulder called Grok! I asked him. He saw it too and he researched a fully-referenced for me as I tire after a Saturday afternoon beer:

Yes, there are notable similarities in the psychological tactics and negotiation strategies employed, though the contexts differ dramatically (high-stakes international statecraft versus domestic public-sector labor disputes). Both involve coercive bargaining, public framing to shift moral responsibility, and pressure through ultimatums or perceived resolve. Critics have explicitly described aspects of the UK approach as having “Trumpian proportions.” https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s631

Trump’s approach to Iran: The “Madman Theory” and maximum pressureDonald Trump’s strategy toward Iran (both in his first term and continuing into the second) centered on the Madman Theory—a deliberate projection of unpredictability, irrationality, or willingness to escalate to extremes in order to coerce concessions and deter adversaries. bbc.com +2 This draws from Nixon-era ideas but was amplified by Trump through:

• Unpredictable threats and calibrated actions: Sanctions (“maximum pressure”), the 2020 Soleimani strike, withdrawn deals (e.g., JCPOA), and rhetoric suggesting he might do “anything.” The goal was to make Iran believe the U.S. leader was temperamentally capable of irrational escalation, forcing caution or concessions without full-scale war. https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-states/limits-madman-theory
• Psychological leverage: Bluffing, strongman posturing, and using “strategic uncertainty” to make opponents question costs and resolve. This extended to allies too, but against Iran it aimed to isolate and demoralize. https://cis.mit.edu/news/why-trumps-madman-act-doesnt-work
• Public and moral framing: Portraying Iran as an existential threat (terrorism sponsor, nuclear risk) to justify pressure and rally domestic/international opinion.

Analyses describe this as coercive bargaining where the “madman” image extracts leverage by raising perceived risks of non-compliance. https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/why-trump-s-madman-act-doesn-t-work

Starmer and Streeting’s approach to resident doctors (UK junior doctors in NHS disputes)In 2025–2026, the Labour government under Keir Starmer and Health Secretary Wes Streeting faced ongoing strikes by resident doctors (formerly junior doctors) over pay restoration, progression pay, training posts, and conditions. Tactics included:

• Ultimatums and conditional withdrawal of benefits: Starmer issued a 48-hour deadline in late March 2026: call off the upcoming strike or lose 1,000 new specialist training places (part of a broader offer tied to accepting the government’s pay/jobs deal). When rejected, the posts were axed. Streeting framed this as “no something-for-nothing culture.” https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/apr/02/wes-streeting-bma-delusion-resident-doctors-strike-nhs
• Strong, moralistic rhetoric and blame-shifting: Streeting repeatedly called the British Medical Association (BMA) “morally reprehensible,” a “cartel,” engaging in “juvenile delinquency,” “delusion,” “self-indulgent,” “irresponsible,” and “unconscionable” for “inflicting pain and misery on patients” and holding back NHS recovery. Strikes were labeled “reckless” and unnecessary, with the government positioning itself as protecting patients and fairness to other NHS workers. https://premierscience.com/pjs-25-1510/
• Public appeals and divide-and-rule: Direct letters to doctors, bypassing the union; emphasis on patient harm and union overreach to erode support for the strikes and pressure individuals/BMA https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2025/12/26/bedu-d26.html

Media noted Starmer “locating his backbone” or “getting tough” with doctors in the wake of his defiance of Trump over Iran involvement, with some framing it as parallel firmness. https://www.the-independent.com/voices/keir-starmer-striking-resident-doctors-donald-trump-iran-war-b2950682.html

Key psychological similarities

1. Coercive ultimatums and leverage removal: Both use “take it or lose it” psychology—Trump via threats of unpredictable escalation or sanctions; Starmer/Streeting via withdrawal of promised training posts/pay elements if strikes continued. This creates a high-stakes choice: comply or face immediate, tangible costs. https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s631
2. Rhetorical demonization and moral framing: Project the adversary as reckless/irresponsible (Iran as destabilizing force; BMA/doctors as harming patients/NHS). This shifts blame, claims the moral high ground, and mobilizes public opinion against the target while portraying the leader as the responsible adult. https://premierscience.com/pjs-25-1510/
3. Psychological pressure via perceived firmness/unpredictability: Trump’s “madman” unpredictability aims to make Iran doubt rational cost-benefit analysis. The UK approach uses sudden, punitive escalation (ultimatum + withdrawal) to signal unbreakable resolve and demoralize the other side—described by some as bad-faith “Trumpian” escalation. https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s631
4. Public opinion as a weapon: Both isolate the target by appealing over their heads—Trump to global audiences/allies; Starmer/Streeting to patients/public and individual doctors—to erode legitimacy and internal unity.

These are classic adversarial psychology techniques: raise the perceived cost of defiance, frame non-compliance as self-defeating or immoral, and use conditional incentives to break will. The scale and risks differ enormously (nuclear brinkmanship vs. NHS workforce retention), and outcomes vary—madman theory has mixed historical results, while the doctors’ dispute remains contentious with public opinion split. https://cis.mit.edu/news/why-trumps-madman-act-doesnt-work

But the underlying playbook—coercion through pressure, rhetoric, and leverage—shows clear parallels.