A Closer Look at Diplomatic Actions and Military Withdrawals

Throughout his time in office, President Donald Trump has consistently presented himself as a "President of Peace," a figure who has worked to bring an end to a number of long-standing global conflicts. This narrative has been a cornerstone of his foreign policy messaging, with the White House citing a series of diplomatic and military actions as evidence of this success. However, a detailed examination of these claims reveals a more complex picture, with some actions characterized as significant breakthroughs and others viewed as either temporary ceasefires or strategic shifts that have not fully resolved underlying disputes. The reality is that the term "ending a war" is often subjective and can be applied differently to various situations, making a comprehensive evaluation challenging.
The most prominent of these claims revolves around a list of conflicts that the administration says have been resolved or brought to a halt. The White House has pointed to a number of recent agreements and ceasefires, including those between Armenia and Azerbaijan, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, India and Pakistan, and Israel and Iran, among others. In the case of Armenia and Azerbaijan, a peace declaration was signed at the White House, with leaders from both nations publicly crediting the administration for its role in brokering the deal. This agreement, which addresses a long-standing territorial dispute, is seen as a major diplomatic achievement, though its long-term stability is still being assessed. Similarly, the administration announced a treaty between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which aims to end their decades-long conflict.
However, a closer look at some of the other conflicts on this list reveals a more nuanced reality. For instance, the administration's claim of having ended the conflict between India and Pakistan is contested. While a ceasefire was reached following a military confrontation, Indian leaders have publicly disputed that the United States was instrumental in brokering the deal. The situation between Israel and Iran is also complex. The White House claims a ceasefire was secured following U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear sites. While this may have brought an end to a specific period of heightened hostilities, experts on the region note that it is more of a "temporary respite" from an ongoing "cold war" than a definitive end to the conflict. These examples highlight the distinction between brokering a temporary ceasefire and achieving a lasting peace agreement that resolves the root causes of a dispute.
Beyond these diplomatic efforts, the administration's "America First" foreign policy has also been defined by a focus on reducing the United States' military footprint abroad. This has manifested in decisions to withdraw troops from a number of conflict zones. One of the most significant of these was the agreement with the Taliban in February 2020, which outlined a plan for the full withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan. While this deal ultimately led to the complete withdrawal of troops, the subsequent collapse of the Afghan government and the Taliban's takeover in 2021 have made the legacy of this decision a subject of intense debate. Supporters of the withdrawal argue that it fulfilled a long-standing promise to end America's involvement in a protracted conflict, while critics point to the humanitarian and political fallout that followed as a sign of a flawed execution.
The administration also ordered troop drawdowns in Syria, a move that was met with significant backlash from both political parties and military advisors. The decision to withdraw troops from Kurdish-held territory in northern Syria was seen by many as abandoning a key ally in the fight against ISIS and creating a vacuum that could lead to the resurgence of the terrorist group. Similarly, the administration's decision to withdraw troops from Germany, a key NATO ally, was viewed by many foreign policy experts as a move that weakened the transatlantic alliance and gave an advantage to strategic adversaries. While these actions may have reduced the number of U.S. troops in certain regions, they did not necessarily bring an end to the underlying conflicts themselves and, in some cases, may have altered the dynamics of those conflicts in unpredictable ways.
In the end, evaluating the administration's claims of having ended wars requires a careful analysis of each individual situation. While the administration can point to some genuine diplomatic successes, such as the recent peace declaration between Armenia and Azerbaijan, other claims are less clear-cut and are often a matter of perspective. Whether a ceasefire is a temporary truce or a permanent end to a conflict depends on the long-term actions of the parties involved and the stability of the agreements reached. The administration's military withdrawals, while fulfilling a campaign promise to reduce foreign entanglements, have also been the subject of significant debate regarding their impact on regional stability and U.S. national security interests. As a result, the question of how many wars were truly ended remains open to interpretation, with a complex record of both diplomatic breakthroughs and controversial strategic shifts.
Source@BBC