In the history of the world, trade ultimatums have never worked. For example, the US has issued such ultimatums to pre-ww2 Japan, Cuba, Iran, and North Korea. Needless to say, in none of those cases did the embargoed country alter their behavior in the desired way.
And it is trivial to understand why such ultimatums don't work: they are political suicide to anyone that capitulates. Imagine if China gave such an ultimatum to the US. How popular do you think that would make China with US voters? A candidate campaigning on the platform of "we better just do what China tells us to," would be dead in the water.
There was collateral, I get milk commercials explaining how the other brand is American, and this one is Canadian. The better one is left for me to decide...
I would argue however that there is a night and day difference between threatening to raise tariffs unless some trade concessions are made (as was the case with Canada) and threatening total embargoe if the other country does not perform some unrelated action (like kill their nuclear weapons program or cut their CO2 or whatever).
The optics of the first is totally fine; it’s just negotiation. You expect the car salesman to try to push the price higher, he expects you to push it lower, it’s how the game works. It’s politically workable.
The latter is more like a boss telling their employee “you must convert to my religion or I’ll fire you.” Because you aren’t asking for trade concessions, it’s much more sensitive and politically unworkable.