As former President Donald Trump endeavors to conclude ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, his strategy appears to prioritize conceding to the demands of the more powerful side while urging the weaker to comply. This approach is hailed by his supporters as pragmatic realpolitik, which acknowledges that the powerful will inevitably dominate, thus advocating for strategic compromises to attain a semblance of peace. “You don’t have the cards right now,” Trump allegedly informed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy during a heated discussion at the White House.
Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. diplomat now associated with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, describes Trump as “transactional,” emphasizing that the former president is in pursuit of rapid victories and tangible agreements rather than engaging in the arduous process of resolving conflicts.
However, the resolution of conflicts often transcends mere military supremacy, exemplified by the United States’ protracted 20-year struggle in Afghanistan, where the world’s mightiest military couldn’t vanquish a determined insurgency. Trump’s unpredictable nature complicates any uniform interpretation of his actions. Recently, he has proposed fresh sanctions against Russia and startled some Israeli officials by negotiating directly with Hamas, a group defined as terrorist by both the U.S. and Israel.
Trump appears to extend numerous concessions to Russian President Vladimir Putin ahead of any peace discussions, such as excluding Ukraine from NATO membership and halting essential military aid and intelligence support needed by Ukraine to counter Russian offensives. Concurrently, Trump has pushed Zelenskyy to allocate Ukraine’s mineral resources to the U.S. without solid security assurances in return.
In the Middle East, Trump has shown considerable support towards Israel, reinstating military aid suspended by the Biden administration and aligning with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives of retrieving all hostages and eliminating Hamas, despite their possible mutual exclusivity. Yet, Trump remains unclear on whether his long-term aspirations for peace align with a two-state solution, a longstanding core of U.S. policy in the region.
As for Hamas, which launched the conflict with an attack on October 7, 2023, Trump has only issued stern warnings and ultimatums publicly. Nonetheless, his administration has engaged in direct dialogues with the group, avoiding traditional intermediaries. Alon Pinkas, a former top Israeli diplomat, perceives that Trump’s dealings illustrate his view of Netanyahu as less of a power broker like Putin or Chinese President Xi Jinping, and more akin to a “local warlord.”
Despite pressures, the weaker factions remain resolute. Zelenskyy continues to bolster relations with European allies who have pledged to reinforce their own security, while also striving to mend the relationship with Washington. Hamas rebuffs Trump’s threats, demanding that the conflict be halted before they release remaining hostages. A tenuous truce, orchestrated by the Biden administration and Trump’s team, hangs by a thread with Israel warning of a potential return to hostilities.
Diana Buttu, a Palestinian analyst with experience advising negotiators, believes Trump’s tactics are unlikely to bear fruit, as Hamas, having withstood significant conflict with Israel, remains unfazed by Trump’s posture. “They don’t see that he’s got any leverage over them,” she stated.
Throughout history, the efficacy of military might has been questioned. Thucydides’ ancient account of the Peloponnesian War underscores this through the Melian Dialogue, where Athens demanded subjugation from Melos, arguing the strong impose their will while the weak accept their fate. However, 12 years following their conquest of Melos, Athens succumbed to Sparta.
America’s successful diplomatic efforts frequently involve more equitable methods, particularly when adversaries endure a mutually hurting stalemate. This was evident when President Jimmy Carter facilitated the Camp David Accords, extracting concessions from both Israel and Egypt not long after their conflict. Similarly, the Good Friday Agreement, achieving peace in Northern Ireland, was possible because both Britain and Irish republicans realized outright victory was unattainable.
Although Trump’s proponents claim he brings fresh perspectives to Middle East diplomacy, historical U.S. strategies have long been anchored in steadfast support for Israel, which hasn’t produced lasting peace. The Abraham Accords, brokered during Trump’s initial term, established ties between Israel and four Arab nations but notably bypassed the Palestinians. Hamas’s October 7 assault was partially fueled by feelings of marginalization.
Buttu recollects encounters with prior American diplomats, conveying similar messages as Trump did to Zelenskyy. In a 2000 meeting regarding a contentious settlement in East Jerusalem, “the Americans turned to us and said, ‘There’s just no way, you’re just going to have to accept defeat and move on,’” she recounted. As the peace process unraveled, leading to a new escalation of violence, she argues the long-held ‘might is right’ conviction only emboldens aggressors further.