Trump’s return and the “New Era” agenda

With Donald Trump’s return to the White House as the 47th President of the United States, the country prepares for what could be a period of significant geopolitical change. Trump’s first term from 2016 to 2020, though controversial, seems in hindsight a “political stroll” compared to the challenges he will face now. From the ongoing war in Ukraine to escalating conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon, Trump’s next term is set to unfold against a much more volatile backdrop.

Upon taking the oath in January 2025, Trump will encounter a Middle East beset by conflict, with three years having passed since the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine war, over a year since Israel’s military operation in Gaza, and a rapidly intensifying standoff between Israel and Iran. Trump has positioned himself as a “peace bringer” to the Middle East, but his bold promises to bring stability to the region beg the question: how realistic is this vision?

Last July, in a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Trump pledged to “bring peace to the Middle East” and warned of the risk of a Third World War if he was not re-elected. His plan for a “global pressure” strategy has been reported by allies in Ukraine and the Middle East, indicating intent to leverage the United States’ influence both over friends and foes.

Yet, Trump’s ambition to end the Russia-Ukraine war “within 24 hours” raises skepticism. While he has criticised what he sees as the unlimited support provided to Ukraine under Biden, his specific method for achieving such a rapid peace remains vague. Likewise, he has emphasised the need to end the conflict in Gaza without clarifying how this will be achieved, while still reaffirming his staunch support for Israel.

In the days leading up to the election, Trump pointed to Lebanon as another focus, asserting, “I know many people in Lebanon, and we must end this tragedy once and for all.” Yet, Lebanon's complicated political fabric, plagued by longstanding divisions and regional interventions, presents a formidable challenge. A durable peace for Lebanon would require much more than a top-down directive. If Trump is to achieve stability, he will need to address the complex root causes of Lebanon’s turmoil, which includes economic despair, sectarian divisions, and external influence, especially from Iran and Hezbollah.

One notable divergence in Trump’s peace-centric rhetoric is his position on Iran. Trump’s relationship with Tehran remains one of antagonism, signaling a potential for escalation. Last October, he suggested that Israel might have to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, an endorsement likely to unsettle the region and disrupt any potential diplomatic progress. This hardline stance is a continuation of Trump’s former “maximum pressure” approach, contrasting sharply with his general peace narrative.

While he claims that “the US does not wish harm upon Iran and desires its success,” his statements seem at odds with this sentiment, given his support for Israeli military action. Trump’s commitment to protecting Israel at all costs suggests that, despite his broader call for peace, conflict with Iran may become an inevitable focal point in his administration.

Despite his pledges to restore “America’s greatness” and lead the world toward a “new era of peace,” questions remain about Trump’s ability to translate these bold promises into real action. As we’ve seen before, campaign promises can quickly clash with reality, particularly in a region as complex as the Middle East. Trump’s detractors, including former President Barack Obama, have previously observed that Trump may once again be met with the cold reality that sweeping changes are rarely as simple as they seem on the campaign trail.

Ultimately, the coming months will reveal whether Trump’s promises to bring peace and stability to these hotspots will yield substantive results or remain rhetorical. He enters this term at a critical juncture, with a more fractured and anxious global landscape. If he succeeds, Trump could indeed reshape America’s role on the world stage and leave a legacy as a peacemaker. However, if his plans falter, he risks exacerbating the very conflicts he claims to want to resolve.

Although Trump speaks of “peace” for the Middle East, it’s apparent that his vision of peace is strictly pragmatic, designed to bolster the US economy, sustain military-industrial profits, and minimize America’s costly involvement in foreign wars. His ambition isn’t to dismantle the military apparatus but to streamline it, making it profitable rather than politically entangling. Rather than “end” wars, he aims to refashion U.S. involvement into a model where allies finance their defense.

As Trump embarks on his second term, he faces a challenging reality: balancing domestic goals against the allure of foreign engagements that fuel military industry gains. Only time will reveal whether his promises will evolve into meaningful shifts in the global order or, as critics warn, another cycle of militarized profit making under the guise of peace.

In the “new era” of Trump’s presidency, the stakes have never been higher, for the United States, the Middle East and the world.