During his election campaign, Donald Trump, the President-elect, has repeatedly pledged to bring an end to the ongoing conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East. His comments varied from claiming that these wars would not have started under his leadership to asserting that he would resolve them once he assumed office. It seems likely that he genuinely intends to fulfill these promises, largely to prioritize domestic concerns such as the economy and immigration.
Trump envisions resolving conflicts by brokering deals using available tools, such as positive incentives and negative deterrents. He has repeatedly emphasized that the objective of his foreign policy is to stop wars, not start them, though he has not provided details on how he plans to achieve this goal.
Trump's Approach to Conflict Resolution
Trump's statements can be understood in light of his self-confidence and belief in his ability to shape events. Drawing from his extensive experience in business and deal-making, Trump often emphasizes his skill in negotiating favorable outcomes. He proposes to apply this same approach to international conflicts, aiming to resolve disputes through agreements that offer both incentives and deterrents. Trump has repeatedly emphasized that the goal of his foreign policy is to stop wars rather than initiate them but has so far provided no details on how he plans to achieve this goal.
In the world of geopolitics, wars sometimes end when one side completely defeats the other, as seen in World War I and World War II. Other times, conflicts subside when one side perceives that the cost of continuing the battle outweighs the gains, leading it to engage in negotiations. In these cases, a third-party mediator often steps in, using a combination of incentives and pressure to broker a resolution that both sides can accept.
However, the effectiveness of the mediator depends on the weight of the incentives (carrots) and the severity of the pressures (sticks) they can apply. The more powerful these tools are, the more likely a resolution will be achievable. Moreover, the nature of the conflict plays a major role. Diplomatic and economic conflicts are often easier to resolve through negotiations and compromises, while longstanding conflicts rooted in political, social, religious, and cultural identity and historical grievances are more complicated, making the role of the mediator more challenging, though not necessarily impossible.
The Ukraine War
Trump has repeatedly claimed that the war in Ukraine would not have started if he had been president, blaming Joe Biden's mishandling for perpetuating the war. Trump even claimed that he would end the war within 24 hours. However, it is evident that Trump has limited leverage over Russia. Since the war began in February 2022, the US has imposed successive rounds of economic sanctions on Moscow, which have impacted the Russian economy but failed to halt its war machine or diminish its capacity to seize Ukrainian territory. Conversely, given Kyiv's reliance on US and European military and economic support, Trump's influence over Ukraine's decision-makers is significant.
From Trump's perspective as a dealmaker, one conceivable approach could involve leveraging Ukraine's success in reclaiming certain territories to initiate negotiations with Russia. Trump might then seek an agreement with President Vladimir Putin that satisfies some of Russia's regional demands in Ukraine in exchange for ending the war, which has drained Russia's resources. Such a deal could even extend to include the Middle East conflicts.
While Putin did not rush to congratulate Trump on his electoral victory on November 6, 2024, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov remarked that time would reveal whether Trump's statements about ending the Ukraine war would materialize. He added, "If the new administration is going to look for peace, not for the continuation of the war, it will be better in comparison with the previous one," noting that the US holds significant sway in resolving this conflict.
On November 7, during a speech at the Sochi Forum, Putin welcomed any dialogue on ending the Ukraine war and praised Trump's resilience in the face of repeated assassination attempts. Trump responded positively, expressing eagerness to speak with Putin soon.
The prospect of a deal between Washington and Moscow is bolstered by the working relationship Trump and Putin developed during Trump's first term and by Trump's view of China, not Russia, as the United States' primary rival. Nonetheless, this approach faces challenges, including strong European support for Ukraine and opposition to any Russian victory, as well as the potential resistance from key US political and security institutions like the Department of Defense, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and the National Security Agency (NSA).
The Wars in Gaza and Lebanon
Regarding Israel's war on Gaza, Trump stated that the October 7, 2023, attack on Israel would not have occurred if he had been president. Trump's unwavering support for Israel was evident during his first term, marked by recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital, moving the US embassy to the city, acknowledging Israel's annexation of the Golan Heights, legitimizing Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, and shutting down the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) office in Washington.
Trump strongly criticized protests in the US against Israel's war on Gaza, urging university administrations and the police to take more decisive action. He also urged Israel to expedite its operations, telling Netanyahu to "finish it quickly." Trump framed his position as supporting Israel's right to win its "war on terror," regardless of the consequences.
Trump criticized the Biden-Harris administration for proposing a ceasefire in Gaza, arguing that it would constrain Israel while benefiting Hamas by allowing it to regroup and plan further attacks akin to October 7. In his first debate with Biden, Trump said that Israel wants to continue the war and should be allowed to "finish the job."
For Trump, ending the war in Gaza means Israel should win and achieve its objectives. This stance was echoed by a spokesperson for his campaign, who confirmed Trump's commitment to ending the Gaza war but clarified that it would be done without compromising Israel's security.
In practical terms, this means Israel would need to complete its operations before January 20, 2025, when Trump officially assumes office—a highly unrealistic goal. Israel has been unable to achieve this over the past year, making it unlikely within two months. The continuation of Trump's military and political support for Israel would only prolong the conflict and deepen the Middle East crisis.
Some believe that Trump might explore the following solutions to fulfill his promise to end the Gaza war:
1. First Scenario: Reintroducing the "Deal of the Century":
This plan hinges on offering Palestinians economic incentives to rebuild infrastructure and improve living conditions. However, implementing it requires vast funds, which Trump is unlikely to allocate from US taxpayers, prompting him to seek contributions from wealthy Arab states and the EU. This faces Israeli resistance over its insistence on military control and settlement expansion, as well as Palestinian opposition absent progress toward statehood.
This scenario faces several obstacles, including Israel's insistence on maintaining military control and continuing settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories. Additionally, Palestinian factions reject such a solution if it is not tied to a path that culminates in establishing a Palestinian state. The same applies to the position of the Palestinian Authority, whose president, Mahmoud Abbas, sent Trump a message congratulating him on his survival of an assassination attempt and another message upon his electoral victory. In his message, the Palestinian president linked his willingness to work with Trump to achieving a just peace based on international legitimacy.
2. The second scenario: A Deal with Iran:
This scenario envisions Trump striking a deal with Iran, whereby he would lift the economic sanctions imposed on the country and allow it to achieve some of its aspirations in exchange for halting its financial and military support to its proxies. This would, in turn, force these groups to cease their involvement in the ongoing conflicts.
However, this scenario also faces significant challenges, including Iran's stance and its potential willingness to respond to such an offer, as well as Israel's firm position on dismantling Iran's nuclear capabilities.
3. Third Scenario: Sponsoring an International Peace Conference:
This scenario seems unrealistic, as many countries would likely prefer the United Nations to oversee such a conference, while Trump wants to pursue a breakthrough that he would credit to himself and his administration.
The same applies to the scenario of pressuring Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian territory and comply with Palestinian demands.
In this context, the most that can realistically be expected is for Trump to succeed in freezing the situation by establishing a temporary truce that halts the fighting in Gaza, only for the conflict to resume later.
Regarding the Israeli war on Lebanon, Trump's statements took on a personal twist. His youngest daughter, Tiffany, married Michael Boulos in 2022, an American of Lebanese descent and son of Massad Boulos, who had emigrated to the United States when he was young. Massad Boulos played a significant role in Trump's campaign, particularly in engaging the Arab-American community in Michigan. Trump mentioned that he had discussed ways to end the war in Lebanon with Massad Boulos. He also sent a signed letter to the Lebanese-American community in the United States, pledging to support Lebanon's society and work toward achieving peace in the Middle East and globally. This letter was recently referenced by sources close to Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.
A Trump-brokered deal over Lebanon might involve Israel's withdrawal to the border between the two countries, the creation of a buffer zone, deploying the Lebanese army or possibly international forces in southern Lebanon up to the Litani River, and resolving the presidential vacuum by electing a new president to stabilize governance in Lebanon. However, this vision faces significant challenges, primarily the inability to disarm Hezbollah and the lack of legitimacy for a president imposed by foreign powers, which would not necessarily lead to stability in Lebanon.
In conclusion, while Trump's pledges to end wars in Ukraine and the Middle East may be sincere and desirable, his proposals lack detailed implementation plans and the necessary tools to achieve these goals. They also face considerable practical obstacles, particularly in Gaza, where his complete bias toward Israel and refusal to recognize any national rights for Palestinians bring his ideas to a dead end.
