The problem with this is that there is now absolutely no reason for anyone to think that any treaty or other agreement made with any US administration (of either party) will remain in force after the next administration takes power.

Rebuilding any credibility internationally will require concerted effort by the legislative and judicial branches (and maybe states ratifying amendments) to rein in the currently out of control power of the executive.

And then the next trump comes in and reneges on all the agreements. Would take a few decades of stability as has been carefully constructed by the US since world war 2.

This is still very optimistic. The only reason this would work is that America's negotiating partners want to believe the change is real. The American people will remain roughly the same electorate that elected Trump (for a second term, after he incited an insurrection), so the danger will remain.

That doesn’t sound like a credible negotiating partner.

"You're going to bomb the shit out of us anyway, what's the point?"

They were already having this negotiation, and we started bombing them in the middle of it.

And they already negotiated an agreement a decade ago, and we ripped it up.

It's fine if you think we should have ripped up the JCPOA, or if you think it was good that we joined Israel in this war in the middle of the new negotiation.

But it's simply deluded to think we are a credible negotiating counterparty after this fact pattern.

You don't understand the difference between negotiation and coercion.