Does Trump’s “Peace through Strength” strategy succeed in resolving conflicts?

Since President Donald Trump took center stage in the United States’ political landscape, the concept of “peace through strength” has resurfaced as a description of his foreign policy, becoming a subject of controversy and debate since he assumed power on January 20, 2025. The question at hand is how Trump has translated his concept of “peace through strength” into reality in dealing with the most prominent conflicts in the world today.

The Concept of “Peace through Strength”:

This concept falls within the realist school of thought in analyzing international relations, which considers the elements of state power and national interests as the essential component in analyzing relations between states and their inevitable pursuit of increasing power in a chaotic world characterized by the absence of global authority or government. This was clarified by Hans Morgenthau, a political science professor at the University of Chicago, in his foundational book “Politics Among Nations,” published in 1948, and further developed by George Kennan in his book on realism in American foreign policy, published in 1954.

Specifically, it falls within one of the modern trends of the realist school, known as offensive realism, which is associated with the name of John Mearsheimer, also a political science professor at the University of Chicago, who argued that a state must continue to increase its direct sources of power without relying on any other party until it becomes dominant in the international system.

In reality, this concept has taken on various forms and applied models, including the image of a balance of power policy implemented by Britain in the 19th century through political alliances and military interventions to prevent the emergence of another power that threatens its interests and position in the international system, known as the “British Peace.” It also includes the image of wars between major powers and their allies to resolve competitions and conflicts between them, as occurred in the First and Second World Wars, where the victors imposed their will and established an international order that safeguards their interests.

It also took the form of a state using power to impose its goals and interests, referred to by some as “imposed peace through force.” This is often an expression of an expansionist policy at the expense of other states and peoples, and perhaps the clearest example of this is the policy of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed in his book “A Place Under the Sun,” where he indicated that the Arabs will only accept Israel by force and coercion, as they do not understand any other language. The truth is that there is no such thing as “imposed peace through force,” as what happens is the suppression of the manifestations of conflict or tension through coercive force, but without resolving its causes and motivations, which means its continuation and reappearance when circumstances permit.

In this context, those who follow Trump’s statements and positions find a mixture of several things. On one hand, he has an expansionist vision, evident in his desire to control Greenland, annex Canada to become the 51st state, possess the land of the Gaza Strip to become a global “Riviera,” regain the Panama Canal, and change the name of the Gulf of Mexico. On the other hand, he threatens to use power in various forms: economically, by imposing tariffs on imports from other countries; politically, through hints and suggestions that amount to blackmailing other states and leaders, and publicly embarrassing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, threatening to open the gates of hell if his demands are not met; and militarily, through military and intelligence support and the direct use of force.

The result is that Trump’s concept of “peace through strength” does not only mean the use of military force, but the deployment of various elements of American power. He boasts of his image as a peacemaker and repeats that during his first term, his country did not start a new war, and that he sought to end American intervention in Afghanistan and signed the 2020 Doha Agreement with the Taliban to withdraw American forces, and that he considered withdrawing forces from Syria, but military leaders convinced him otherwise. Trump also repeats that if he were in power, neither the Russian war in Ukraine nor the Israeli war on Gaza would have erupted in the first place, and that he aims to end them during his second term, making him deserving, in his view, of the Nobel Peace Prize.

This aligns with Trump’s self-image as a skilled negotiator and deal-maker who meets the demands of various parties. The implication here is that he considers American power under his leadership as a “deterrent force” that prevents the outbreak of wars, and if they do break out, it accelerates their end. His interest in the role of American power and the need to increase it is heightened by his feeling that this power has declined during the years of the previous president, Joe Biden, leading to others daring to challenge it, which Trump expressed in his inaugural address as president, saying, “The era of American decline is over now.”

Practical Applications:

Trump’s translation of his concept of “peace through strength” into reality can be understood through his handling of several ongoing conflicts and wars in the world and the Middle East, as follows:

1- The Russian-Ukrainian War: Starting with the Russian-Ukrainian war that erupted on February 24, 2022, Trump used a mix of incentives and deterrents towards both Moscow and Kyiv. With Moscow, he reestablished contact with President Vladimir Putin, deliberately refraining from any personal insults or accusations against him in his statements, explaining that it is easy to blame others but that does not help in making deals with them. On March 19, 2025, the two presidents had a phone call that lasted about two hours. Conversely, when Russia expanded its military operations, Trump threatened on March 17 of the previous year to impose banking sanctions and tariffs on it until a ceasefire agreement was reached in Ukraine. On March 30, Trump stated that he was “very angry” with Putin for questioning the legitimacy of the Ukrainian president. He also threatened to impose secondary tariffs ranging from 25% to 50% on all Russian oil imports if he felt that Moscow was hindering his efforts to end the war in Ukraine.

Trump followed the same approach with Kyiv, indicating that as part of the rare earth minerals agreement, American engineers and technicians would work on Ukrainian soil, providing the greatest security assurance for it, and that he wanted to end the destruction of infrastructure and the killing and death of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers. Conversely, Trump warned his Ukrainian counterpart that he had no leverage and that he must accept cooperation with American ideas to start a negotiation process aimed at a ceasefire. When Zelensky expressed reservations and stated that his country needed greater security guarantees, Trump did not hesitate to issue orders to cut off military aid and intelligence cooperation with Ukraine, which he reinstated after Zelensky complied with his demands.

It seems that this dual use of elements of American power has borne fruit, as negotiations were held between the United States and Russia in Riyadh in February 2025, followed by American-Ukrainian negotiations in Riyadh as well, and then Russian-Ukrainian negotiations mediated by the United States and facilitated by Saudi Arabia in Jeddah in March of the previous year.

It is worth noting that the phone call between Trump and Putin was not limited to the issue of Ukraine. According to Trump’s statement, they discussed topics such as “the Middle East, energy, artificial intelligence, the strength of the dollar, and other issues.” Trump did not neglect American interests, as he was keen to sign an agreement with Ukraine to share its rare earth minerals in exchange for the price of the weapons and ammunition provided by Washington. The astute politician Putin understood Trump’s personality, as he mentioned in their call the great economic opportunities that would be available to American companies in the Russian market after the war ended. Russian statements were issued regarding the return of American companies to invest and operate in Russia.

The stance of major European countries such as Germany, France, and Britain differs from Trump’s approach, as these countries show greater determination to continue arming Ukraine and establishing a “coalition of the willing.” A conference was held in Paris on March 27 of the previous year to support Ukraine and express European concerns about Russian expansion. However, it does not seem that this will be a long-term obstacle to what Trump is doing.

2- The Israeli War on Gaza: Trump followed a similar approach towards the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip, but his success was much more limited. Trump started by proposing the idea of relocating the people of Gaza to other places where, according to him, they could enjoy decent living conditions and security, while the area would be developed to become a global tourist destination. However, Palestinian, Arab, international, and domestic rejection, including from members of Congress from both the Republican and Democratic parties, forced him to retreat from this idea and possibly postpone it to a later time.

On one hand, Trump provides political and military support to Israel in its aggression against the Palestinians, supplying it with bombs with destructive capabilities that the Biden administration had prohibited, and threatening Hamas more than once that the gates of hell would open against it. Trump said on March 5 of the previous year: “I sent Israel everything it needs to complete the mission, and no member of Hamas will be safe if you do not do what I say.”

On the other hand, representatives of the American administration held direct negotiations with Hamas officials in Doha despite Israeli objections, and American diplomacy actively participated with Egypt and Qatar in reaching a ceasefire agreement before Trump officially assumed power. When the first phase of the agreement ended and the start of the second phase faltered due to Israeli stubbornness, Trump’s envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, continued to communicate with Cairo and Doha to revive the agreement. At the same time, Israel, with American approval, began a violent military operation on the Gaza Strip on March 18 of the previous year.

The main reason for the limited success of Trump’s policy in Gaza is his failure to recognize that Israel is an occupying power and that it prevents the Palestinians from their right to self-determination and establishing their state in accordance with international legitimacy resolutions.

3- The Iranian Nuclear File: The scene repeats itself in the development of relations between Washington and Tehran, as Trump called for negotiations with Iran regarding its nuclear program while escalating his threats against it, warning its leaders that they were exposing their country to a military strike. Trump announced his return to practicing “maximum pressure” and imposed new sanctions on the transport of Iranian oil to China early on February 6 of the previous year. On March 20 of the previous year, the U.S. Treasury Department imposed further financial sanctions on Iranian individuals and entities.

On its part, Iran combined in its policy a desire for negotiations with Washington and continued uranium enrichment, warning the United States that any military strike against it would directly threaten American interests in the region.

The relations between Trump and Iran are not devoid of strange paradoxes, as the American president announced that he sent a letter to Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei on March 6 of the previous year, inviting him to hold talks between the two countries, and that he set a maximum of two months to reach an agreement on the nuclear file, and that if Tehran did not accept this offer, it would face dire consequences. Tehran announced on March 7 that it had not received any written message, and this ambiguity continued until March 12 when Dr. Anwar Gargash, the diplomatic advisor to the UAE’s ruler, arrived in Tehran carrying the text of the message and delivered it to Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi.

Iranian reactions to Trump’s statements and the content of his message varied, as President Masoud Pezeshkian announced on March 11 the rejection of Tehran entering into any negotiations under threat. Supreme Leader Khamenei stated on March 21 that “the Americans should know that threats will not be effective in confronting Iran.” On his part, Foreign Minister Araghchi clarified on March 27 that Iran had sent its official response through the Sultanate of Oman “in the appropriate manner” to Trump’s message, saying: “Our official response included an explanation of our viewpoint on the current situation and Trump’s message,” and he emphasized that Iran’s policy still stands on not engaging in direct negotiations under maximum pressure and military threats. Subsequent Iranian positions ranged between agreeing to hold indirect talks – which seem to have actually started in Oman – and hinting at the use of force, through reference to Tehran’s ability to attack the American-British military base in Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, and emphasizing that anyone who tries to strike Iran will pay a heavy price for it.

4- American Strikes against the Houthis: If Trump mixed power and diplomacy in the previous three conflicts, diplomacy was completely absent with the Houthis in Yemen. Since March 15 of the previous year, American aircraft intensified their strikes on the Houthis, with a particular focus on the Saada Governorate, which is the political center of the group, in addition to the governorates of Sanaa, Hodeidah, Marib, and Al-Jawf. On March 19, Trump threatened the Houthis with complete destruction, asserting that U.S. Air Force strikes would pursue them everywhere. These strikes continued daily until the early days of April of the current year. It is noted that this American military movement came unilaterally, continuously, and without the participation of other countries, suggesting that it not only aims to strike the Houthis but also seeks to send a threatening message to Iran. In response, the Houthis announced targeting the American aircraft carrier “Harry Truman” in the Red Sea and Ben Gurion Airport in Israel with ballistic missiles.

In conclusion, “peace through strength” was not just a political slogan for Trump, but he implemented it as a strategy in his foreign policy, combining coercive diplomacy and armed force to varying degrees from one conflict to another. Trump’s personality is an image of the “pragmatic extremist” model, as he adopts ideas that are unfamiliar and shocking to others, which represent the essence of his ideological system, but as a politician, he understands the limits of using force in reality and is willing to propose an idea, then retreat from it, then reintroduce it when circumstances ripen and the opportunity arises to achieve it.