Since his return to office, President Donald Trump has confronted three major international crises: Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas in Gaza, Russia’s prolonged invasion of Ukraine, and Israeli–U.S. strikes in Iran. His global policy — shaped in both terms by the doctrine of peace through strength — rests on a key principle: effective leadership abroad does not demand endless military entanglement, but rather the strategic use of force and conditional support.
The common thread in all three major foreign conflicts has been President Trump’s ability to steer U.S. policy toward a uniquely balanced approach of decisive support in service of U.S. national interest. He has never been inclined to offer open-ended commitments but has secured the U.S. immense leverage through calculated pressure and credible threats.
Israel–Gaza War
President Trump’s focus on advancing American interests amid the Israeli war with Hamas has not weakened his support for our allies. From the start, he has made clear that attacks on U.S. allies have consequences.
President Trump leveraged U.S. resupply timelines and vetoes at the United Nations to ensure that Israel would receive full diplomatic and military support in exchange for an off-ramp to the war, and no significant destabilization in the region.
On Monday, President Trump met with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu to advance his long-standing goals for the region. Seizing the momentum secured in the Israel–Iran ceasefire, Trump used the meeting to negotiate the end of Israel’s involvement in Gaza.
Trump’s strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities — targets beyond Israel’s military capability — has given him significant leverage in the Gaza war: The U.S. airstrike secured Israel’s desired goal in Iran, and now Netanyahu is compelled to come to the table and negotiate an end to the Gaza military operation.
As of Sunday, negotiations between Israel and Hamas are underway, mediated by Qatar and Egypt. According to Axios, “The deal on the table is a 60-day truce involving the release of 10 live Israeli hostages and 18 deceased hostages.” Trump hopes the agreement will serve as a stepping stone toward a broader and lasting peace.
President Trump has walked a tightrope regarding the Gaza conflict. On one hand, he could have given Israel unlimited support with no clear strategy for ending the fighting. On the other, he could have embraced the full-scale isolationism and distancing from Israel that some on the right have advocated — again risking a prolonged and unresolved war.
Balancing these two positions, the president has offered support contingent on a swift peace and has used U.S. negotiating power to broker an end to the war.
Israel–Iran Conflict
As previously noted, Trump’s strikes on the nuclear facilities in Iran have given the U.S. significant bargaining power in the region. President Trump demonstrated restraint by urging Israel not to assassinate Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, thereby avoiding entanglement in a regime change war.
The president entered the conflict with a clear goal which he has promoted since 2011 — that Iran cannot possess nuclear capability. Trump’s restraint was further demonstrated in calling for a ceasefire as soon as this goal was achieved and any possibility of nuclear production was dismantled. U.S. involvement was a means of obtaining leverage, not a gateway to a long-term regional war.
The global gamble by the president was an ultimatum for Iran — not the beginning of another endless war in the Middle East. Now, it appears that this gamble is paying off. According to a report by Al Jazeera, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian is now seeking peace with the U.S. in order to avoid further strikes.
In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stated, “I am of the belief that we could very much easily resolve our differences and conflicts with the United States through dialogue and talks.” This statement by the Iranian president illustrates the very definition of peace through strength. Had President Trump capitulated to the reclusive voices in American politics, it is possible that Israel, which did not have the capability to destroy Fordo, would still be engaged in war with Iran.
The tactical U.S. strike — along with the credible threat of further involvement — has successfully brought Iran to the table and has effectively destroyed any remaining leverage Ayatollah Khamenei possessed.
Ukraine–Russia War
On July 8, President Trump announced that the U.S. would continue supplying Ukraine with weaponry as the country’s years-long war with Russia continues. According to the president, the weapons are “primarily defensive,” highlighting the president’s desire to wind down the war.
In recent months, Trump has intensified his rhetoric about Vladimir Putin, seeking to hold direct talks and find a lasting end to the conflict. The president has emphasized the importance of European burden-sharing as the war has progressed, as well as using energy sanctions as leverage.
As with Israel, President Trump has not sought to arm Ukraine to the teeth but has made any military aid conditional, and within American interests. Rather than allowing U.S. weaponry to endlessly fuel the war, Trump called for a ceasefire in May, threatening further sanctions on Russia.
In February, Trump held a direct call with Putin, calling again for negotiations. Russia’s continuation of the war since this phone call has prompted President Trump to potentially apply harsher sanctions to the country. On Tuesday Politico reported that Trump “said he was ‘very strongly’ considering supporting a punishing sanctions bill to bring Russia to heel.”
This conflict illustrates President Trump’s unwillingness to cut off all aid to Ukraine, as such a move could embolden Putin to continue the war indefinitely. While resolving this conflict seems more difficult than winding down the wars in the Middle East, President Trump’s threats of sanctions and tariffs on Russia remain on the table.
By continually initiating dialogue between the two countries, President Trump has wisely positioned the U.S. as a mediator rather than a passive funder or warmonger. While U.S. leverage is not as direct as in the Middle East, Trump’s actions and tone aim to pressure Russia into an off-ramp in the war. For Trump, military aid to Ukraine is not an end in itself, as it was with President Biden, but is a lever to increase negotiations and forge a path to peace.
READ MORE FROM Andrew Gondy:
DOJ, FBI Close the Book on Jeffrey Epstein, Claiming No Client List Exists
Christian Conservatives Present Unity Despite Denominational Differences
Singer’s ‘Death, Death to the IDF’ Chants Result in Revoked Visas