During his election campaign, elected President Donald Trump promised on several occasions to end the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East. His statements varied from suggesting that these wars would never have occurred if he had been president, to hinting that he would stop them once in power. It is likely that he genuinely wishes to do so to avoid being distracted from the key domestic issues he wants to focus on, primarily the economy and immigration.
Trump’s Deals:
These statements and promises can be viewed in the context of Trump’s confidence in his own power and personal role in influencing others and the course of events. Trump prides himself on his ability to strike deals rooted in his financial and business background. He seeks to solve political problems and crises through a similar approach; by making deals that utilize the tools available to him, such as positive incentives and negative pressures. Trump has repeatedly asserted that his foreign policy aims to stop and end wars rather than start them, though he has only alluded to this without explaining in detail how he would achieve this goal.
Wars sometimes end with one side victorious, achieving its goals completely, while the other side surrenders, as seen in World War I and World War II. At other times, wars end when one side feels that the costs of continuing outweigh the expected gains, prompting them to seek negotiations with the other side to end the conflict. In these cases, a third party is often involved, mediating between the warring factions, using tools of persuasion and threat to reach solutions both sides can accept.
However, the success of the third party in accomplishing this task depends on the incentives and pressures it wields over the conflicting parties, as well as their influence. The higher the value of incentives or the severity of the pressures, the greater the likelihood of the third party succeeding. It also depends on the nature of the conflict, whether it revolves around diplomatic or commercial disputes that can be bargained, or whether it involves entrenched political and social struggles related to identity, with historical, cultural, and religious roots. In the latter scenario, the role of the third party becomes more challenging, though not impossible.
The Ukrainian War:
Turning to the war in Ukraine, Trump has stated that if he had been president, it would not have erupted, blaming the poor management of Joe Biden for its continuation, even claiming that he could end it in 24 hours. However, it is clear that Trump does not possess many tools to pressure Russia. Since the war erupted in February 2022, Washington has imposed successive rounds of economic sanctions on Moscow, which have certainly affected the Russian economy, but have not stopped the Russian war machine or reduced its capacity to continue fighting and gaining more territory in Ukraine. Conversely, Trump has significant influence over Ukrainian decision-making, due to Kyiv’s military and economic dependence on Washington and European countries.
From Trump’s perspective regarding a good deal, it could be imagined that he might leverage Ukraine’s success in occupying parts of Russia, believing it would be in a position to negotiate with Russia, while simultaneously reaching an agreement with President Vladimir Putin to obtain a better offer on its territorial demands in Ukraine, in exchange for ending a war that has drained his country’s human and economic resources. Such a deal might also expand to encompass the wars in the Middle East.
While Putin did not rush to congratulate Trump on his election victory the day after the election, November 6, 2024, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov stated that time would tell whether Trump’s talk of ending the war in Ukraine would materialize. He noted that “if the new American administration seeks peace, rather than continuing the war, that would be better,” pointing to the United States’ ability to contribute to ending this conflict.
On November 7, President Putin entered the discussion during his remarks at the Sochi Forum, expressing his welcome for any talks aimed at ending the war in Ukraine and praising Trump’s bravery in light of his repeated assassination attempts. The response from Washington was positive, with Trump quickly stating he looked forward to talking with Putin soon.
The prospect of a deal between Washington and Moscow is supported by the fact that Trump and Putin successfully built a working relationship during Trump’s presidency, and that Trump considers China — not Russia — to be the main challenge for the United States. However, this approach would encounter several difficulties, such as some European countries’ enthusiasm for supporting Ukraine and their reluctance to see Russia achieve a victory, as well as the degree of response from American political and security institutions like the Pentagon, CIA, and NSA to this approach.
Wars in Gaza and Lebanon:
Regarding the Israeli war on Gaza, Trump pointed out that the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel would not have occurred if he were in power. Trump has taken a position of full support for Israel, evident during his first term when he recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved the U.S. embassy there, recognized Israel’s annexation of the Golan Heights, sanctioned Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories, and closed the PLO office in Washington.
Trump strongly criticized the American protests against the Israeli aggression and called for university administrations and police to take firmer actions. He urged Israel to expedite its objectives, telling Netanyahu that “you need to finish it and do it quickly.” On another occasion, he expressed his belief that “Israel has the right to win its war against terrorism,” insisting it should “win quickly, regardless of what happens.”
Trump criticized the Biden-Harris administration’s approach in proposing a ceasefire, stating that it imposes restrictions on Israel’s actions, clarifying that any ceasefire would benefit Hamas, as it would give them a chance to regroup and plan another assault akin to the one perpetrated on October 7. In his first debate with Biden, Trump remarked that “Israel wants to continue the war, and they should be allowed to finish their job.”
Thus, Trump’s concept of ending the war in Gaza implies an Israeli victory and achievement of its goals. This is reinforced by a statement from one of Trump’s campaign spokeswomen on the day the U.S. election results were announced, asserting Trump’s commitment to ending the war in Gaza. When a reporter asked her how that could happen before Israel achieved its objectives, she replied that the end of the war would occur without threatening Israel’s security.
In practical terms, implementing this would require Israel to end its aggression before January 20, 2025, the date Trump officially assumes the presidency, which is an unrealistic goal. If Israel has not been able to achieve this over more than a year, it is unlikely to accomplish it in two months. If Trump continues to support Israeli military and political strategies, it will lead to the continuation of the war on its various fronts and deepen the crisis in the Middle East.
Some believe there are potential solutions for Trump to fulfill his promise to end the war in Gaza, including the following:
A scenario in which he reintroduces what he calls the “Deal of the Century,” which centers on offering economic and investment incentives to Palestinians aimed at reconstruction, rebuilding the economy, and improving living standards and opportunities. This would require vast sums of money that Trump would be unwilling to provide from American taxpayers; instead, he would encourage some wealthy Arab countries and EU nations to contribute. This scenario faces obstacles such as Israel’s insistence on military control and settlement activities in the occupied Palestinian territories, as well as Palestinian factions’ rejection of a solution that is not tied to a process leading to a Palestinian state. This applies equally to the Palestinian Authority, whose president sent a congratulatory message to Trump after his assassination attempt and another following his electoral victory, linking his willingness to work with Trump to achieving peace based on international legitimacy.
A scenario in which Trump brokers a deal with Iran, lifting the economic sanctions imposed on it in exchange for Iran halting its financial and military support for its proxies, thereby compelling them to stop the war. This scenario also faces challenges, such as Iran’s response to such an offer and Israel’s determination to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
A scenario of holding an international peace conference under American auspices, which may be an unrealistic proposal as many countries would prefer the UN to sponsor such a conference while Trump seeks to achieve a breakthrough attributed to America and himself. The same applies to the scenario of pressuring Israel to end its occupation and respond to Palestinian demands.
In this context, the most that can be imagined is that Trump might succeed in freezing the situation and establishing a truce to halt the fighting in Gaza temporarily, only for the conflict to resume afterward.
Regarding the Israeli war on Lebanon, Trump’s comments have taken on a personal dimension, as his youngest daughter, Tiffany, married Michael Boulos in 2022, an American of Lebanese descent, the son of Massad Boulos, who emigrated to the United States in his youth. Massad Boulos participated in Trump’s campaign and played a significant role with the Arab community in Michigan. Trump mentioned that he discussed with Massad Boulos how to end the war in Lebanon. He wrote a letter to the Lebanese community in the U.S. committing to support the community in Lebanon and striving for peace in the Middle East and the world. This letter was recently referenced by sources close to Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri.
A potential Lebanese deal from Trump could involve Israel withdrawing to the border line between the two countries, establishing a buffer zone, and deploying the Lebanese Army, perhaps alongside UN forces, in southern areas up to the Litani River, alongside ending the presidential vacancy and electing a new President to stabilize governance in Lebanon. This vision faces many challenges, primarily the impracticality of disarming Hezbollah, and a foreign-imposed selection of the President will not stabilize conditions in Lebanon.
In conclusion, Trump’s commitments regarding ending wars in both Ukraine and the Middle East may be sincere and desirable hopes; however, his proposals are vague and do not specify how they will be implemented or the tools he will use in this regard. Furthermore, they face significant challenges in practice, particularly in Gaza due to his complete bias toward Israel and refusal to acknowledge any national rights of the Palestinians, rendering his ideas seemingly stuck in a dead end.
