The aspirations and expectations of “ending wars,” as promised by Donald Trump, hinge significantly on the evolution of his thinking, convictions, and orientations, as well as his capacity to reform policies he previously introduced, enforced, or intended but failed to fulfill, which in practice, contributed to conflicts. This is evident, for instance, in how he established the “deal of the century” as a foundation for “peace” in the Middle East. Alongside it, he introduced normalization agreements between Israel and Arab states, which partially achieved their objectives. However, the ongoing conflicts—particularly in Gaza and the West Bank—demonstrate that the “deal of the century” was not a strategy for preventing warfare but rather one that incited it. It was designed to facilitate Israel’s annexation of Palestinian territories. Consequently, the two-state solution has resurfaced as a prominent international option, rooted in international laws and the recognized legitimate rights of the Palestinian people, standing in stark contrast to Trump’s “deal.” Questions surrounding Trump’s intentions and plans extend to the situation in Ukraine, which has resurrected memories of World War II with its nuclear and economic ramifications. Trump maintained that he had a straightforward solution: American-Western recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a concession to ease tensions with Russia and avert a potential confrontation with NATO. Nevertheless, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, coupled with Vladimir Putin’s strategic collaborations with China, Iran, and North Korea, has solidified Ukraine as a stepping stone towards a new world order, challenging Trump’s vision of “making America great again.” This new order is perceived as unattainable without dismantling American dominance over global politics and economics. Doubt lingers over Trump’s ability to fulfill his promise to prevent further wars, or his effectiveness in establishing new peaceful international relations as a counter-model to Russia’s aspirations, all while continuing a focus on countering China. Trump and his advisors must recognize the global transformations arising from recent conflicts and acknowledge that his earlier proposals contained inherent strategic ambiguities and volatile imbalances. Many argue that his suggestion to destabilize NATO and weaken Europe paved the way for Ukraine’s invasion. Furthermore, the inclusion of China (and Iran) in the Ukrainian conflict underscores it as a global strategic issue, transcending mere border disputes. Any resolution rooted in the forcible occupation of lands risks turning national borders worldwide into fresh conflict zones. The conflict in Ukraine might end if Trump is prepared to bargain European security in line with Putin’s demands, recognizing that Putin seeks a more significant concession beyond the territories he has seized and remains steadfast in his alliance with China, contrary to Trump’s expectations. Similarly, conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon could cease, contingent upon two conditions: firstly, curbing the ambitions of Israel’s extreme religious right, and secondly, limiting Iran’s regional expansion and influence. These conditions highlight the United States’ pivotal role in fostering and exacerbating these tensions. Washington’s Middle East strategy historically centered on Israel’s primacy, disregarding international legal norms and neglecting to establish limits for its ally, which encouraged the recognition of its territorial occupations in Palestine and Syria. This was a hallmark of Trump’s initial presidency, a stance he could amend in a subsequent term, should he choose, recognizing that peace in the region necessitates a fundamental shift toward justice for the Palestinians. Conversely, America had, alongside Israel, fashioned Iran as a persistent threat to the Arab world—an approach that has been solidified post-September 11 and the Iraq invasion, and later reinforced by the nuclear deal. On the brink of these two wars, Tehran had amassed advantages, and although its influence over Hamas and Hezbollah has waned, and the conflict has turned its tide, Iran retains bargaining power to preserve its interests should Trump decide to engage diplomatically. —Abdulwahab Badrakhan (translated by Asaf Zilberfarb)
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
