President Donald Trump is attempting to end ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine through a strategy that seemingly involves catering to the demands of the dominant party and pressuring the weaker side into compliance.
Some of Trump’s allies regard this as a pragmatic approach recognizing the inevitable victory of stronger forces, recommending cutting any losses for a semblance of peace. He starkly reminded Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy that his country currently lacks the leverage needed.
According to Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. diplomat now with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Trump prioritizes swift achievements over the arduous process of conflict resolution, focusing on deals instead of comprehensive peace strategies. However, this overlooks the complexity and unpredictability of conflicts, as evidenced by America’s prolonged conflicts such as Afghanistan, where military might was insufficient to break an enduring insurgency.
Trump’s inconsistent actions further complicate a cohesive understanding of his foreign policy. Recently, he proposed additional sanctions against Russia while his administration unnerved some in Israel by initiating direct negotiations with Hamas, viewed by many as a terrorist organization.
In Ukraine, Trump effectively handed Russian President Vladimir Putin many of his desires even before initiating peace discussions, such as dismissing Ukraine’s NATO aspirations and pausing essential military support crucial for Ukraine amid Russian assaults. Concurrently, he urged Zelenskyy to share Ukraine’s natural resources with the U.S., with no firm security assurances in return.
In the Middle East, Trump’s alignment mainly favored Israel, reinstating military assistance paused by the Biden administration, and backing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s objectives concerning hostages and Hamas, though it remains unclear if Trump’s long-term outlook includes the historically significant two-state resolution.
Where Hamas is concerned, having initiated the war with its October 7, 2023, attack, Trump has largely been confrontational, issuing threats and ultimatums, even while holding direct negotiations recently. Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli diplomat, suggested Trump perceives Netanyahu more as a localized leader rather than a power figure like Putin or China’s Xi Jinping.
Despite Trump’s approach, the lesser-powered parties, Ukraine and Hamas, remain determined. Zelenskyy is encouraging support from Ukraine’s European allies, who are reinforcing their defenses, and he remains committed to repairing relations with Washington. Hamas, countering Trump’s threats, indicates remaining hostages would only be freed through negotiations to conclude hostilities.
Influences beyond military strength have shaped conflict outcomes through history. The ancient Melian Dialogue presents a stark narrative where Athens overpowered Melos but later faced defeat against Sparta. More contemporary conflicts embody this complexity, with Hamas surviving multiple encounters with Israel’s superior military, and Ukraine stalwartly resisting Russian invasion.
Successful U.S. diplomatic efforts traditionally embrace fair mediation, such as the Camp David Accords mediated by President Jimmy Carter, or Britain’s peace in Northern Ireland once both sides acknowledged outright victory was elusive.
Though Trump’s unconventional Middle Eastern negotiations are noted, the U.S. has traditionally supported Israel unwaveringly, and peace attempts have historically faltered. Trump’s Abraham Accords, marginalizing Palestinians, correlated with Hamas’s October attack rooted in perceptions of neglect.
Palestinian analyst Diana Buttu remarks on Trump’s approach’s improbability for success, evocative of past American strategies urging unilateral acceptance of defeat, only worsening the conflict’s deadlock.
