What “Trump’s Peace” Really Means
As Donald Trump leans on a “peace through strength” message, allies point to the Abraham Accords as proof that his brand of transactional diplomacy can quiet long-running disputes.
The Accords, signed in 2020, normalized relations between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain and later drew in Morocco and Sudan. Behind closed doors, aides touted arms packages and economic incentives, arguing that pragmatic interests could outrun decades of stalemate.
Supporters also cite a reduction in ISIS-held territory and the absence of new large-scale U.S. wars during his term. They frame “Trump’s peace” as deterrence paired with dealmaking—sanctions, tariffs, and sharply personal negotiations.
Critics counter that the strategy left structural tensions unresolved. The Palestinian question, they argue, was sidelined rather than solved, while Iran intensified its regional networks. Diplomats say pressure campaigns can freeze conflict lines without building the institutions required to sustain calm.
Trump’s advisers now sketch an expanded vision: broader Arab-Israeli normalization, tighter Gulf security cooperation, and rapid-fire bargaining to end Russia’s war in Ukraine. On the trail and in interviews, Trump has pledged he could spur a cease-fire “quickly” by using leverage over arms, energy, and finance.
Experts are skeptical. Wars, they note, are not mergers, and leverage has limits when partners face existential stakes. Any push for grand bargains would collide with domestic politics in Israel, the Palestinians’ fractured leadership, Tehran’s calculations, and Moscow’s objectives in Ukraine.
Yet the appeal of “Trump’s peace” persists for voters fatigued by conflict and inflation. The brand is simple, testable, and emotive: fewer American casualties, cheaper energy, and visible deals. Whether it is a pathway or a slogan depends on the next round of choices by actors across multiple fronts.
For now, the record stands as a study in contrasts: headline breakthroughs alongside unresolved cores of conflict. If a second iteration emerges, its success will likely turn less on spectacle than on the slow work of verification, sequencing, and guarantees—the unglamorous grammar of durable peace.
Markets, too, would judge it: sustained calm tends to lower risk premiums, but miscalculations can erase diplomatic gains overnight.