Trump-Era Diplomacy: Pauses in Conflict, Not Paths to Peace
WASHINGTON – The administration of former President Donald Trump frequently touted a commitment to ending wars, yet a pattern emerged of intervening to halt conflicts without resolving their underlying causes. From the Middle East to South Asia and Ukraine, U.S. diplomatic pressure and military actions secured temporary ceasefires, but rarely led to lasting political settlements, raising questions about the evolving nature of American statecraft.
This approach, characterized by “escalation management” rather than comprehensive conflict resolution, has left a legacy of paused, rather than ended, conflicts, according to a new analysis by Gopi Krishna Bhamidipati, a scholar of international relations at the Newlines Institute for Strategy and Policy. The study, published by War on the Rocks, argues that the U.S. has become increasingly adept at enforcing “negative peace” – the absence of active fighting – while struggling to achieve “positive peace” – the reconfiguration of political and economic relationships that make renewed violence unattractive.
“Ceasefires are no longer treated primarily as bridges to political settlement,” Bhamidipati writes. “They function instead as instruments of escalation management – mechanisms to contain risk, limit spillover, and restore short-term stability without confronting underlying long-term political contradictions.”
Gaza: A Case Study in Containment
The recent conflict between Israel and Hamas provides a stark example. Successive pauses in fighting, brokered through international pressure including U.S. efforts, reduced civilian harm and prevented regional escalation, but failed to address the fundamental issues of Gaza’s governance or Palestinian statehood. Israeli officials, following the October 7th attacks, framed military operations as necessary to restore deterrence, targeting Hamas leaders and infrastructure. Hamas, for its part, viewed survival as a strategic success, using ceasefires to regroup and maintain relevance.
U.S. diplomacy, while effective in managing escalation, avoided articulating or enforcing a political end state. The emphasis remained on de-escalation and timing, with the “day after” – Gaza’s future political status – deliberately deferred. This resulted in a cycle of suspended violence without altered incentives, mirroring a pattern observed in other conflicts.
Beyond Gaza: A Global Trend
Similar dynamics played out in the Israel-Iran confrontation, where coordinated U.S.-Israeli strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities were calibrated to avoid regime-threatening escalation, focusing instead on deterrence. Iran responded with carefully calibrated actions, signaling a willingness to restore deterrence without widening the war. The subsequent engagement between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former President Trump, while signaling continued dialogue, did not yield a strategic resolution.
In South Asia, following a terror attack in Pahalgam, India launched Operation Sindoor, a limited military campaign against Pakistan. While Trump claimed credit for ending the conflict, the analysis reveals the U.S. role was limited to crisis communication and restraint signaling, with the cessation of hostilities stemming from bilateral contact between Indian and Pakistani military leaders. India subsequently implemented punitive measures, such as suspending the Indus Waters Treaty, hardening the crisis environment.
The Thailand-Cambodia border conflict also illustrates this trend, with externally brokered ceasefires failing to address underlying territorial disputes and nationalist tensions. Fighting resumed despite initial pauses, highlighting the limitations of imposing stability without addressing the root causes of conflict.
Ukraine: Leverage Without Consent
The U.S.-led diplomatic push on Ukraine represents the most ambitious attempt to translate battlefield leverage into a political settlement. However, the analysis suggests that while the U.S. has exerted significant pressure, securing consent from both Ukraine and Russia remains elusive. Ukraine is hesitant to concede territory, while Russia shows limited willingness to accept an outcome that doesn’t align with its maximal aims.
A Shift in U.S. Doctrine?
The recently released U.S. National Security Strategy reflects this shift towards prioritizing deterrence, rapid response, and escalation control over comprehensive conflict resolution. This approach treats conflict as a condition to be contained rather than a problem to be solved.
“This pattern reflects not diplomatic failure so much as doctrinal realism,” Bhamidipati concludes. “Many contemporary conflicts lack mutually acceptable end-states, and U.S. policymakers increasingly operate on the assumption that political transformation is neither feasible nor worth the cost.”
The analysis suggests that a more effective approach would involve explicitly linking ceasefires to political pathways, applying leverage earlier in the process, and investing in political capacity-building to support long-term stability. Without these shifts, the U.S. risks perpetuating a cycle of paused conflicts, where peace is postponed rather than achieved.