Donald Trump: Self-proclaimed Peacemaker Lacking Fortune and Expertise

Image: Steve Travelguide/shutterstock.com

US President Donald Trump, even during his first term in office, set out with the intention of quickly ending wars and resolving conflicts. He aimed to end the Ukraine war "within 24 hours". This has failed and the end of the war seems far off. The "historic meetings" between Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un in 2018 and 2019 in Singapore, Hanoi, and at the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea ended without a "deal". The Gaza War is also being continued with undiminished ferocity by the Israeli army. Negotiations over Iran's nuclear program are making little progress. The Trump administration claims the Houthis have been defeated militarily. But doubts are justified. Only the conflict between India and Pakistan, which flared up again in late April/early May, appears to have been contained.

Analysing the course of these wars and conflicts in detail, it becomes clear why Trump's promises of quick solutions have had so little success.

Let's start with the positive outcome: the end of the military conflict between India and Pakistan. Following a terrorist attack in Indian-controlled Kashmir at the end of April 2025, the Indian government responded by destroying military facilities in Pakistan. Pakistan, for its part, deployed its armed forces. Some Indian fighter jets were lost. Another major war between the two countries could not be ruled out. After a ceasefire was quickly agreed upon, there was a diplomatic dispute over whether it had been mediated by the United States. At the beginning of the conflict, the US government vacillated between silence and vague warnings of escalation. Trump wrote: "They'll figure it out one way or another."

Then Trump wrote several times on social media that he had acted as a moderator. “After a long night of talks mediated by the United States, I am pleased to announce that India and Pakistan have agreed to a full and immediate ceasefire. Congratulations to to both countries on using common sense and great intelligence.” The Indian government appeared extremely annoyed that Trump had posted the news before India could do so. Clearly, the government emphasized that it had negotiated the ceasefire bilaterally with Pakistan without the Trump Administration. Trump's statement was apparently just another one of his usual boastful statements and self-congratulations. A lot of hot air in Washington: Picking up the telephone and urging the conflicting parties to be calm is not serious conflict mediation.

Decades of experience in conflict mediation have taught us that peace negotiations are most likely to succeed when both sides have concluded that a military victory is not possible – when the conflict is "ripe" for negotiations. The US President has completely failed to take this fundamental insight into account in his plans to end Russia's war in Ukraine. Russia still believes it can win the war. Why should the Kremlin negotiate now? And Trump is ignoring another insight from conflict mediation in both the Ukraine and Gaza wars: the involvement of all relevant actors is a prerequisite for the sustainability of peace negotiations. Trump is neither interested in the participation of the Ukrainian government or civil society there, nor has he taken the Palestinians into account. For him, the population of Palestine is merely an annoying obstacle to the realization of his absurd and illegal plans for a Riviera in Gaza.

The US has been negotiating with Iran since April 2025 to resolve the long-simmering nuclear dispute. Their negotiating positions are far apart. The Iranian government shows no willingness to abandon its nuclear program, but at the same time claims it has no intention of building nuclear weapons. The US wants to prevent Iran from using its weapons-grade uranium stockpiles to build nuclear weapons. Actually, this goal was already achieved in 2015 in the so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action between the five UN veto powers, Germany, the EU, and Iran. At that time, Iran agreed to reduce its uranium stockpiles by 98 percent and to maintain its enrichment level at 3.67 percent (far below weapons-grade). In return, the sanctions were to be gradually lifted.

Trump had criticized this agreement during the 2016 election campaign and opted out of the treaty in May 2018 to be able to negotiate a new, better deal. Now, ten years after the conclusion of the original agreement, Iran's nuclear program has progressed further, and the Trump administration could be happy if it could achieve the same conditions today. In 2018, Trump once again ignored a fundamental precondition of conflict mediation: a genuine willingness to compromise and consider the interests of the conflicting parties. The 2015 agreement was a compromise with weaknesses: it was time-limited, monitoring was patchy, and it did not include Iran's missile program. Whether that agreement would have demilitarized Iran's nuclear program is not verifiable. However, it is likely that the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program would be less today. In any case, Trump's book The Art of the Deal is obviously not a guide to concluding these kinds of complex international agreements.

The Yemeni Houthis, originally a regional rebel group, have developed into a militarily threatening force in the Middle East. “We’ve launched 1,100 strikes against the Houthis. They’re tough, they’re fighters, but they agreed to stop targeting US ships,” said President Trump during his recent visit in the region. Oman brokered a ceasefire between the US and the Houthis. Both sides feel victorious: The Trump administration is pleased that no US ships are being targeted any longer, and the Houthis welcome the end of US missile attacks. But whether this agreement will hold is questionable; the Houthis simultaneously announced plans to expand their military operations to support the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. President Trump could take to heart one lesson learned from conflict mediation: a neutral and impartial third party can act as a moderator to build trust. But perhaps this insight is unacceptable to a narcissist.

During his first term, Trump approached North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un with a similar bragging approach as he does today in his efforts to end the war in Ukraine. The goal of the talks was nothing less than the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the lifting of economic sanctions. But previous US administrations, from Clinton to Bush, had failed to achieve this. Trump was willing to ignore diplomatic conventions and met with Kim three times between June 2018 and June 2019. The two governments had previously exchanged a series of verbal insults. North Korea violated the UN ban on nuclear and missile tests and was not intimidated by Trump's threat to destroy North Korea with "fire and fury”. Trump dubbed his opponent "Little Rocket Man", only to then meet with him anyway.

But the summits failed without a breakthrough. They failed because the respective positions were too wide apart. North Korea was to shut down its nuclear facilities immediately; Kim demanded the immediate lifting of sanctions. Here, too, it became clear that a realistic assessment of possible solutions is essential for lasting agreements. North Korea has since gained influence through close relations with Russia and China. Negotiations are currently not taking place. President Trump seems to tire too quickly to do the nitty-gritty details of negotiations (as it seems the case in the Ukraine war now). Instead, he claimed after his election that North Korea's ruler "misses" him.

Trump should be given credit for his willingness to engage in dialogue, another basic prerequisite for successful conflict resolution. But that alone isn't enough to conclude sustainable international agreements. Even, as a businessman, having the experience of multiple insolvencies isn't enough for international negotiations. It's crucial to take note of and apply the experience gained from decades of conflict mediation in practice.

Related articles:

Donald Trump’s overwhelming force/surrender style of negotiation and governing (3-minute read) 

This is not who we are: The United States in retreat (3-minute read)

Time to decouple and build solidarity with like-minded? (3-minute read)

Herbert Wulf is a Professor of International Relations and former Director of the Bonn International Center for Conflict Studies (BICC). He is presently a Senior Fellow at BICC, an Adjunct Senior Researcher at the Institute for Development and Peace, University of Duisburg/Essen, Germany, and a Research Affiliate at the National Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Otago, New Zealand. He serves on the Scientific Council of SIPRI.