Donald Trump's approach to foreign policy has frequently been marked by a blend of direct negotiations, unconventional diplomatic tactics, and a pronounced focus on perceived victories and public accolades. Analysing his involvement in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, North Korea's nuclear stance, Venezuelan leadership crisis, India-Pakistan, and recently Israeli-Iran conflicts reveals various dimensions of his strategy.
Unfortunately, it has become evident that he has merely undermined his own credibility in the context of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. His approach to the India-Pakistan issue demonstrated a lack of statesmanship, and in hindsight, the global community has recognized this as nothing more than arrogance. His attempt to take center stage in the Iran-Israel situation resulted in complications rather than resolutions.
Ukrainian President’s Shocker!
Donald Trump, who has campaigned vigorously with the slogan "Make America Great Again," shifted his focus to international affairs as soon as he assumed office. He dived headfirst into the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, which had already been in progress for two years, and conducted media-covered discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, urging an end to hostilities. However, Trump's proposals were met with outright rejection, particularly as Volodymyr Zelenskyy dismissed his peace efforts during a joint press conference. He subsequently sought to mediate tensions between India and Pakistan, claiming through social media that both nations had agreed to a ceasefire at his request. India promptly refuted this assertion, maintaining that the situation was an internal matter and that any ceasefire was in response to Pakistani military suggestions.
Trump’s ‘Ceasefire” Strike on Israel-Iran
Recently, Trump attempted to assert his influence regarding the conflict between Israel and Iran. His efforts were, predictably, fraught with challenges. While Iran progressed with its nuclear ambitions, the United States supported Israeli strikes on Iranian military installations, targeting oil fields and inflicting significant damage on several Iranian cities. After these assaults, Trump declared the conflict over unilaterally, provoking a sharp rebuke from Iran, which expressed outrage over the illegality of the U.S. and Israeli actions and the subsequent announcement of a ceasefire without consultation. Such declarations should emerge only when there is a mutual agreement established between the involved nations.
However, as Trump pursues what he perceives as global peace, his ambitions face major obstacles. Notably, just two weeks before Israel's actions against Iran, discussions were underway between the two nations regarding nuclear program regulation, a critical dialogue abruptly disrupted by military hostilities!. Despite China's and Russia's support for Iran during this conflict, neither nation has engaged directly in military action. Additionally, Russia has vital interests to consider, as approximately 2.2 million Russians reside in Israel and 1.3 million are employed in Iran’s oil sector. Consequently, Russia has limited its involvement to mediation efforts, prioritizing its citizens' interests.
Diplomatic on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Trump's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict significantly leaned towards bolstering Israel, straying from the traditional U.S. goal of a two-state solution. His 2020 "Deal of the Century" plan was largely dismissed by Palestinians, who were excluded from its announcement and viewed it as heavily skewed in favour of Israeli interests. Landmark decisions, such as recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and relocating the U.S. embassy there, and declaring Israeli settlements in the West Bank lawful under international law, were perceived by many as detrimental to Palestinian statehood aspirations. Despite asserting credit for facilitating various ceasefires, particularly in Gaza, analysts often characterize these as temporary measures aimed at creating headlines rather than achieving genuine peace. Critics contend that actions like cutting bilateral aid to Palestinians aggravated tensions and diminished the potential for a genuine two-state solution. Trump's apparent priority seemed to lie in securing a deal advantageous to Israel—a move he could showcase as a significant diplomatic victory—rather than pursuing a balanced resolution for both parties involved.
Strategy on North Korea's Nuclear Program
Trump's strategy regarding North Korea marked an unprecedented direct diplomatic engagement with Kim Jong Un, culminating in three face-to-face meetings—a stark shift from the "strategic patience" of prior administrations. Trump frequently boasted about his "very good relationship" with Kim, claiming their summits had averted conflict and halted North Korean nuclear and missile testing. However, despite the high-profile interactions and media spectacle, tangible progress towards denuclearization remained elusive. The 2019 Hanoi summit, anticipated as a pivotal moment, ended in stalemate due to disagreements over sanctions relief in exchange for disarmament actions. North Korea has since continued its nuclear and missile development, leading experts to suggest that Trump’s direct engagement may have inadvertently legitimized Kim Jong Un on the international stage without securing significant denuclearization commitments. While Trump sought to embody the role of an effective "dealmaker" and peacemaker, the strategic goals concerning North Korea's nuclear capabilities were not fulfilled during his presidency.
‘Pressure’ Approach on Venezuelan Crisis
Trump’s engagement with Venezuela was characterized by a "maximum pressure" campaign aimed at ousting Nicolás Maduro and supporting opposition leader Juan Guaidó. This strategy involved implementing strict economic sanctions, including a comprehensive oil embargo, and advocating for a shift towards democracy. While Trump framed his administration's stance as a determined effort against authoritarianism and in support of democratic principles, the campaign ultimately failed to remove Maduro from power. Despite inflicting severe economic repercussions on Venezuela that contributed to a humanitarian crisis and mass migration, the sanctions allowed Maduro to fortify his position and form alliances with countries like Russia, China, and Iran. Critics argue that the "maximum pressure" approach prioritized isolating Maduro and aligning with regional allies seeking his ousting, rather than fostering a negotiated resolution or providing substantial humanitarian assistance. Trump's strategy appeared more about demonstrating strength against a socialist regime than about advancing a thoughtful peace-making agenda.
Peacemaker or a Brand Builder
Donald Trump's aspirations to maintain the U.S. as a superpower while simultaneously curtailing the influence of China and Russia—and seeking recognition as a global leader—are increasingly met with ridicule. His self-depiction as a distinguished leader earning the world's trust has become a source of amusement. Historically, while various U.S. presidents have embodied traits ranging from warmongering to fervent nationalism, few have achieved the level of global mockery that Trump appears to have fostered through his unilateral actions.
Throughout all the recent major conflicts, a pattern suggests that Donald Trump favoured direct, high-stakes engagements often aimed at securing immediate, visible "wins" that he could claim credit for. Although he undoubtedly disrupted traditional diplomatic protocols and achieved some temporary agreements (like the Abraham Accords, which are often regarded separately), the long-term significance of conflict resolution and lasting peace remains contentious. Many analysts argue that his policies were frequently more about self-aggrandizement and enhancing his image as a "dealmaker" than establishing a foundation for sustainable peace. The narratives emerging from these three conflicts indicate that while he was willing to engage directly and upend established diplomatic practices, the results frequently fell short of comprehensive peace and sometimes exacerbated ongoing issues, all while allowing him to assert personal responsibility for any positive developments.
