(Phnom Penh): As clashes intensify along the Cambodia–Thailand border, a new diplomatic front has emerged—this time from Washington. Former U.S. President Donald Trump has expressed interest in mediating the conflict, but Thailand’s Prime Minister has publicly declared that he is “not afraid of U.S. economic sanctions” and will not discuss Cambodia “with anyone.”

This raises a critical strategic question: If Thailand refuses dialogue—even with the U.S. President—what geopolitical consequences could follow?
Below is the Fresh Exclusive analysis exploring the key scenarios and potential outcomes should Thailand reject Trump's proposed trilateral phone call with the Cambodian and Thai Prime Ministers.

Scenario 1 — Thailand Rejects the Call, but the U.S. Will Still Apply Pressure
(The most likely scenario)

Even if the Thai Prime Minister refuses direct communication, U.S. leverage does not depend on a phone call. Washington can still apply significant pressure through:
- Targeted sanctions on Thai military and political officials
- Suspension of military cooperation and training programs
- Export restrictions and trade barriers
- Public statements undermining Thailand’s international credibility
- Quiet influence over IMF, World Bank, and ADB financing

In this scenario, Thailand’s refusal is merely symbolic domestic political theater aimed at pleasing nationalist supporters.

But in practice, Thailand’s economy, military cooperation, and international standing still depend heavily on the United States.

Thus, if Thailand rejects Trump’s call, Cambodia automatically gains diplomatic advantage, because the U.S. pressure will intensify without Thailand having any strategic response.

Scenario 2 — Thailand Rejects Publicly But Negotiates Secretly
(A common feature of Southeast Asian diplomacy)

Thai political culture places high value on “saving face,” especially during crises.

By publicly refusing Trump, PM Anutin projects toughness to domestic nationalists.

However, behind closed doors, Thailand may still:
- Allow quiet back-channel communication
- Seek indirect negotiation through U.S. diplomats
- Request that pressure from Washington be applied discreetly
- Pursue a face-saving compromise

This scenario acknowledges that Thailand cannot truly defy the United States, because its economy, military ties, and international credibility remain dependent on Washington.

As Thailand approaches its general election, the Prime Minister may feel compelled to project defiance publicly—but rely on secret diplomacy privately to avoid long-term damage.

Scenario 3 — Thailand Uses Strong Rhetoric as a Political Weapon, Not a Real Strategy

Thailand’s tough rhetoric is not a genuine strategic doctrine—it is a political performance.

The Prime Minister’s claim that he is “not afraid of America or sanctions” is not a reflection of Thailand’s actual geopolitical position.

It is a message tailored to nationalist sentiment inside Thailand at a time when his political support is weakening ahead of national elections.

In reality, Thailand fully understands that it cannot confront U.S. power on its own terms.

Thus, the strong rhetoric serves merely as a political shield, not a viable foreign-policy strategy.

If the Prime Minister stops using this tough rhetoric, he risks:
- Appearing weak
- Being accused of fearing Cambodia
- Losing control of the narrative
- Facing criticism from nationalist voters

Therefore, the aggressive tone is a temporary device to maintain domestic political balance, not a sustainable geopolitical policy.

In this scenario, if Anutin truly refuses to speak with the U.S. President, it signals fear of U.S. pressure, not strength.

Such refusal would further erode Thailand’s international trust, destabilize its strategic posture, and invite economic consequences through sanctions and reduced foreign investment.

Ultimately, this scenario shows that harsh rhetoric cannot substitute for real strategy. Thailand risks walking into a geopolitical dead end with no easy way back.

Conclusion

For Thailand, one fact cannot be ignored: the United States holds overwhelming leverage.

No amount of public bravado or rhetorical defiance can weaken U.S. influence.

Anutin’s refusal to talk is political theater designed for domestic consumption—not a genuine foreign-policy doctrine.

Ironically, this refusal makes Thailand appear cornered, reactive, and diplomatically insecure, while Cambodia gains international credibility thanks to its “peace first, self-defense second” principle.

If Thailand truly closes the door on diplomacy with Donald Trump, it will not harm the United States.

Instead, it will deepen Thailand’s strategic isolation and unintentionally elevate Cambodia’s diplomatic standing.

Prime Minister Anutin must understand a crucial point: Even if he refuses a phone call, the United States can still exert pressure on Thailand—fully and without restraint.