TRUMP 2.0
Could Trump Get A Nobel Peace Prize? Here's What We Know As Now Netanyahu Nominates Him
"Trump SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize. He has stopped war between at least 6 different countries and working on 2 more. GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT. I GET IT.
Rawanda ,Congo, Serbia, Cosavo, Iran, Israel ..."
The Nobel Question: Examining Claims About Donald Trump's "Peace Deals" and the Complexity of Global Diplomacy
The assertion that Donald Trump "SHOULD get the Nobel Peace Prize" for stopping wars in six countries (Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, Israel) and working on two more, framed with the stark declaration "GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT," presents a bold and provocative claim. It demands scrutiny against the complex backdrop of international relations during his presidency (2017-2021) and the nuanced criteria for such a prestigious award. While the Trump administration did engage in significant diplomatic maneuvers, particularly in the Middle East, the reality is far more intricate and less definitive than the original post suggests.
Deconstructing the Claimed "Stopped Wars":
1. Rwanda & Congo: There is no substantial evidence that the Trump administration intervened decisively to stop an imminent war between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Tensions, particularly related to rebel groups operating in eastern DRC and alleged Rwandan support, have persisted for decades. While the U.S. consistently engages diplomatically in the Great Lakes region, no specific, major conflict-resolution breakthrough orchestrated by Trump between these two nations occurred. The conflicts in the DRC are internal and regional, not primarily a bilateral Rwanda-DRC war stopped by U.S. action.
2. Serbia & Kosovo ("Cosavo"): The Trump administration did actively re-engage in Serbia-Kosovo negotiations, appointing Ambassador Richard Grenell as a special envoy. Talks were revived, leading to agreements on economic normalization in September 2020. However:
This did not resolve the core political dispute over Kosovo's sovereignty (which Serbia does not recognize).
The agreements focused heavily on economic ties and infrastructure, falling short of a comprehensive peace treaty ending the fundamental conflict.
Significant tensions and sporadic crises between the two entities continued and persist after Trump's term. While a diplomatic push happened, claiming it definitively "stopped a war" oversimplifies the ongoing, unresolved situation.
3. Iran & Israel: This claim is perhaps the most contradictory to the actual record.
JCPOA Withdrawal: Trump's most significant action regarding Iran was the unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear deal in May 2018. This was followed by a "maximum pressure" campaign of severe sanctions. Impact: This move is widely seen as increasing regional tensions significantly. It crippled Iran's economy, led Iran to progressively abandon its own JCPOA nuclear limits, heightened the risk of miscalculation, and brought the U.S. and Iran perilously close to direct conflict (e.g., the January 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani and the subsequent Iranian missile strikes on U.S. bases in Iraq). Rather than stopping a war, this policy created a prolonged period of elevated risk of conflict between the U.S. and Iran, with severe knock-on effects for regional stability, including for Israel.
Israel-Iran Proxy Conflict: The long-standing shadow war between Israel and Iran (fought through proxies like Hezbollah in Lebanon and various groups in Syria) intensified during this period. Israeli airstrikes on Iranian targets in Syria became more frequent and open. The maximum pressure campaign arguably made Iran more reliant on its regional proxies and more aggressive in its activities. Far from being "stopped," this conflict escalated.
4. Israel: Taken alone, this is too vague. If referring to the broader Israeli-Palestinian conflict or Israel's relations with neighbors, the record is mixed:
Abraham Accords: This is the Trump administration's undisputed diplomatic achievement. Brokering normalization agreements between Israel and the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain (later joined by Sudan and Morocco) was historic. It shifted regional dynamics and created new avenues for cooperation. However:
It did not resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which remained largely ignored and arguably worsened (e.g., moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, endorsing Israeli sovereignty over settlements).
It did not involve countries in active, direct warfare with Israel at the time (the conflicts were largely frozen or proxy-based).
While reducing tensions between specific Arab states and Israel, it arguably increased tensions with other actors, primarily Iran and its allies, and potentially deepened Palestinian disillusionment. It stopped potential future wars between Israel and those specific Gulf states, but not active wars.
The Abraham Accords: The Core Achievement
The normalization agreements between Israel, the UAE, and Bahrain (the Abraham Accords) stand as the Trump administration's primary claim to peacemaking. This was a significant accomplishment:
Breaking Taboos: It normalized relations between Israel and major Arab states without requiring prior resolution of the Palestinian issue, shattering a long-standing diplomatic consensus.
Regional Realignment: It reflected and accelerated a regional realignment driven by shared concerns about Iran and economic opportunities.
Diplomatic Facilitation: The U.S. played a crucial role in facilitating the deals, leveraging relationships and incentives.
This achievement generated genuine Nobel Prize speculation at the time. However, the Nobel Committee ultimately did not award it to Trump. Reasons likely include:
The Palestinian Omission: The Accords bypassed the Palestinians, a core party to the broader regional conflict. Critics argued it traded Palestinian rights for Gulf state interests.
Simultaneous Tensions: The Accords occurred alongside heightened tensions with Iran and a stagnation (at best) of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
Broader Record: The Committee may have considered the administration's overall foreign policy approach, including the withdrawal from international agreements (Paris Climate Accord, JCPOA, WHO) and rhetoric often seen as divisive or undermining multilateral institutions – the very tools often used for sustained peacebuilding.
GO TO WAR AND YOU WILL GET IT": The Deterrence Argument
The post's aggressive statement reflects a specific philosophy: that projecting overwhelming military strength and a willingness to use it ("peace through strength,"deterrence") is the most effective way to prevent wars. Proponents argue that Trump's unpredictability and bolstering of the U.S. military deterred adversaries from aggression.
Potential Validity: Deterrence is a cornerstone of international relations. A credible threat can prevent conflict.
Significant Caveats:
Attribution Difficulty: Proving a war didn't happen because of a specific leader's actions is inherently speculative. Other factors (economic interdependence, internal politics of potential aggressors, multilateral pressure) always play a role.
Unintended Escalation: The "maximum pressure" approach with Iran demonstrates how aggressive posturing can increase the risk of miscalculation and accidental conflict, rather than prevent it. The Soleimani strike brought the U.S. and Iran to the brink.
Undermining Alliances: Trump's frequent criticism of NATO allies and demands for increased defense spending, while aimed at strengthening the alliance financially, caused significant diplomatic friction and raised questions about U.S. commitment to collective defense – potentially weakening deterrence in the eyes of adversaries like Russia.
Erosion of Norms: Withdrawing from agreements and undermining international institutions can erode the very frameworks that help manage conflicts peacefully over the long term.
The Nobel Peace Prize: Criteria and Context
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded to "the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses." Key considerations often include:
1. Concrete Achievements: Tangible results in ending conflict or building peace (e.g., treaties, disarmament).
2. Conflict Prevention: Efforts demonstrably preventing the outbreak of war.
3. Broader Contribution: Work promoting international cooperation, human rights, and institutions that foster lasting peace.
4. Sustained Peace: While not always possible immediately, the long-term viability of the peace achieved is a factor.
5. Method: Peaceful means are generally favored.
Conclusion: A Nuanced Verdict
While fueled by the genuine achievement of the Abraham Accords, the sweeping claim that Donald Trump "stopped wars" in Rwanda, Congo, Serbia, Kosovo, Iran, and Israel, and therefore unequivocally deserves the Nobel Peace Prize, does not withstand detailed scrutiny. The record is complex:
Overstatement: Claims regarding Rwanda/Congo and Serbia/Kosovo lack evidence of decisive conflict-stopping interventions. The Iran-Israel situation demonstrably worsened under "maximum pressure."
Significant Achievement: The Abraham Accords were a landmark diplomatic success, reshaping Middle Eastern relations and reducing tensions between Israel and specific Gulf states.
Contradictory Record: This success coexisted with actions that significantly increased tensions elsewhere (withdrawal from JCPOA) and sidelined a core conflict (Israel-Palestine).
"Deterrence" Debate: The argument that Trump's tough stance prevented wars through deterrence is plausible in theory but difficult to prove and carries significant risks of escalation and alliance erosion.
Nobel Criteria: The Nobel Committee likely weighed the tangible success of the Abraham Accords against the omission of Palestine, the escalation with Iran, and the administration's broader approach to international institutions and cooperation, finding the totality insufficient for the award.
Donald Trump's presidency was marked by unconventional and highly consequential foreign policy moves. The Abraham Accords stand as a legitimate diplomatic victory worthy of recognition. However, the assertion that he singularly stopped multiple wars across the globe, especially in Africa and the Balkans, and dramatically reduced tensions between Iran and Israel, is a significant overreach that overlooks the complexities, contradictions, and escalations that characterized his administration's approach to international peace and security. The path to lasting peace rarely follows a straight line drawn solely by the threat of force, and the Nobel Committee's decision reflects a judgment on the totality of the record, not just its brightest spot.
#Trump #Peace #NobelPeacePrize #Rawonda #Rawanda #Congo #Serbia #Croatia