President Trump’s bold assertion of halting six or seven wars has sparked both admiration and debate among observers of global affairs.
As reported by CBS News, Trump has repeatedly claimed credit for resolving major conflicts, even suggesting he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. His list includes disputes like Israel and Iran, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and India and Pakistan, among others.
While some of these interventions show tangible results, foreign policy experts argue that labeling all as settled wars stretches the truth. Many of these conflicts linger unresolved, casting doubt on the depth of the claimed victories.
Starting with Israel and Iran, a ceasefire was brokered in June after a deadly 12-day clash, with U.S. and Qatari involvement facilitating the pause. Trump took credit, stating he ordered airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear sites and urged Israel’s Netanyahu to restrain further action.
Michael O’Hanlon from Brookings gave a nod to Trump’s role, saying his blend of rapport and pressure on Netanyahu helped halt hostilities temporarily. Yet, experts like Larry Haas counter that peace is far from secure, with Iran regrouping and tensions simmering beneath the surface.
Similarly, in May, India and Pakistan agreed to a ceasefire over Kashmir after cross-border strikes, with Pakistan praising Trump’s mediation in U.S.-led talks. But India downplays U.S. influence, and analysts like Josh Kurlantzick warn that the core dispute is nowhere near resolved, especially with new tariffs on India stirring friction.
In June, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo signed a peace deal mediated by Trump and Qatar, targeting decades of conflict over mineral resources. Yet violence persists, with Human Rights Watch reporting over 140 civilian deaths by the M23 group in July, showing the fragility of such agreements.
O’Hanlon called this a rushed claim of success, noting we’re merely at the starting line. The deal looks more like a photo op than a lasting fix when both sides keep pointing fingers over violations.
Turning to Thailand and Cambodia, a late July ceasefire followed deadly clashes, with Trump claiming he forced talks by threatening trade penalties. Experts agree his economic leverage as a top importer for both nations helped, but border disputes and accusations of new landmines by Thailand reveal the ceasefire’s shaky ground.
In August, Trump pushed an agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan to normalize ties and reopen routes after decades of strife over Karabakh. While both leaders credited him and even floated a Nobel nomination, the deal awaits ratification, with sticking points like Armenia’s constitutional claims still unresolved.
Then there’s Egypt and Ethiopia, where Trump claims to have brokered peace over a Nile dam dispute, posting on Truth Social that his intervention ensures stability. No formal agreement exists, though, and Ethiopia’s dam opening in September keeps Egypt on edge, with O’Hanlon bluntly stating this isn’t a war to begin with.
Serbia and Kosovo round out the list, with a 2020 deal under Trump to boost economic ties, but progress has stalled despite ongoing European talks. Haas points out that Trump’s impact was mostly in his first term, and current tensions, rooted in Kosovo’s unrecognized independence, remain untouched by recent efforts.
Trump’s rhetoric, like his Friday claim of stopping “big ones too,” paints a picture of unparalleled diplomatic triumph. Yet the record shows a patchwork of temporary halts and unresolved grudges, hardly the sweeping peace he describes.
His supporters might argue that any step toward calm, like the Israel-Iran pause, proves a knack for deal-making over the endless deliberations of career diplomats. Still, when violence flares again in Congo or Kashmir, it’s hard to see these as wars ended rather than briefly paused.
In the end, as the Nobel Peace Prize announcement looms next month, Trump’s tally of settled conflicts seems more aspirational than factual. The drive to sidestep the quagmires of progressive overreach in foreign policy is laudable, but true peace demands more than ceasefires—it requires roots that don’t snap at the first gust of wind.
