The world stands at a crossroads, with global tensions escalating from the Middle East to Eastern Europe and beyond. At the heart of this maelstrom is former and current U.S. President Donald Trump, whose second term has been marked by a paradoxical foreign policy: a self-proclaimed “peacemaker” who has failed to condemn Israel’s aggressive military actions, potentially paving the way for a new era of global conflicts. From Israel’s unilateral strikes in Qatar, Yemen, and Iran to the ongoing devastation in Gaza, Trump’s inaction—or implicit support—raises critical questions about his role in either averting or igniting world wars.
Israel’s 2025 Aggression:
Israel’s military operations in 2025 have pushed the Middle East to the brink, with ripple effects threatening global stability. In June, Israel launched a 12-day bombing campaign against Iran’s nuclear facilities and military targets, a move that killed prominent Iranian figures and prompted Tehran to vow retaliation. This was followed by a surprise airstrike in Qatar targeting Hamas leadership, executed without prior notification to the U.S. or Qatar, a key U.S. ally hosting CENTCOM’s regional headquarters. Further strikes in Yemen against Houthi rebels and in Lebanon against Hezbollah have compounded the chaos, displacing millions and exacerbating humanitarian crises.
These actions have fueled fears of a broader conflict. Russian President Vladimir Putin warned in June that the Israel-Iran escalation, coupled with the Ukraine war, risks a “World War III scenario.” The Vatican echoed this, describing a “piecemeal world war” gaining momentum. On X, users like @NeilWar30077505 labeled Israel’s Gaza operations a “massacre,” urging global intervention to prevent a slide into global war. The Atlantic Council highlighted the lack of de-escalation mechanisms, noting that ideological entrenchment could draw in superpowers like the U.S., Russia, and China.
Israel defends these strikes as necessary to counter existential threats, citing Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attack and Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Yet, the European Left and UN experts argue that strikes in neutral territories like Qatar violate international norms, risking a domino effect where other nations follow suit. If Iran retaliates by targeting oil routes like the Strait of Hormuz, which handles 20% of global supply, economic fallout could force new alliances, reminiscent of pre-WWI escalations.
Trump’s Silence: Complicity or Strategic Restraint?
Donald Trump’s response—or lack thereof—to Israel’s actions has been a defining feature of his 2025 presidency. Despite campaigning as a “peacemaker and unifier,” Trump has neither condemned nor taken serious steps to curb Israel’s unilateral strikes. After Israel’s Qatar attack, Trump expressed mild displeasure, stating he was “very unhappy” about the lack of notification, but offered no consequences, assuring Qatar it wouldn’t happen again. Similarly, he initially rebuked Israel’s June strikes on Iran but joined the campaign, authorizing U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s Fordo, Natanz, and Isfahan nuclear sites, later claiming credit for a ceasefire.
This pattern suggests tacit endorsement. Trump praised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “war hero” for the Iran strikes, adding, “I guess I am too,” in an August interview. His administration’s failure to impose sanctions or diplomatic pressure on Israel for violating Qatar’s sovereignty or escalating in Gaza—where famine looms—has drawn criticism. Reuters reported that Trump’s decision to back Israel stemmed from pressure by hawkish allies like Senator Lindsey Graham, despite his MAGA base urging restraint. On X, @GlobalUpdates24 accused Trump of igniting “9 new wars,” from Middle East escalations to Latin American interventions.
Trump’s supporters argue he’s avoiding direct U.S. entanglement, preserving his “America First” mantra. Yet, critics like Aaron David Miller note his “chaotic and inconsistent” approach, with no clear strategy to end conflicts like Gaza’s. By greenlighting Israel’s actions through inaction, Trump risks emboldening other nations to act unilaterally, potentially sowing seeds for global wars.
Unilateral Strikes and International Law:
Israel’s extraterritorial strikes raise a broader question: Can any nation target its enemies abroad at will? International law provides clear boundaries. The UN Charter’s Article 2(4) prohibits force against a state’s territorial integrity without consent, except under Article 51’s self-defense clause, which permits responses to an “armed attack.” The “unwilling or unable” doctrine allows strikes on non-state actors in states unable to act, as seen in U.S. drone operations in Pakistan. Israel justifies its Qatar and Iran strikes under this framework, citing Hamas and Iranian threats.
However, UN experts argue that preemptive strikes, absent an imminent attack, violate the Charter. Qatar’s lack of consent and Iran’s non-aggressive posture before June’s strikes blur legal lines. Trump’s failure to condemn these actions, coupled with U.S. strikes on Iran, undermines norms. On X, @RWPUSA warned that unchecked “enemy targeting” erodes sovereignty, risking illegal invasions. Without Security Council approval, such actions are legally precarious.
A Recipe for World Wars?
If every nation adopted Israel’s approach, targeting enemies abroad without restraint, the result would be catastrophic. The World Economic Forum’s 2025 Global Risks Report ranks state-based conflict as the top threat, with 23% of experts fearing proxy wars escalating globally. A free-for-all would destabilize alliances: Iran could strike Saudi Arabia, China could target Taiwan, or Russia could hit NATO states, citing precedent. Stimson’s 2025 report warns of a “Rogue America” enabling copycat unilateralism.
The Global Peace Index notes rising violence in Sudan, Yemen, and Gaza, where unchecked actions could internationalize civil wars. X user @yonies_anor highlighted “hidden hatreds” fueling ethnic and religious conflicts, a precursor to broader wars if norms collapse. Historical analogies—like the 1914 assassination sparking WWI—underscore the risk. In a nuclear age, unilateral strikes could trigger apocalyptic escalations.
Trump’s Role in the “New Normal”
The world is undeniably entering a new era of warfare—multipolar, hybrid, and relentless. The Guardian’s 2025 analysis questions if World War III is already underway, citing the retreat of the “rules-based order.” Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Sudan displace millions, with no end in sight. Crisis Group’s 2025 report flags Trump’s unpredictability as a driver, alongside Sudan’s famine and Indo-Pacific tensions. On X, @vtchakarova predicted a China-Russia “DragonBear” axis exploiting Trump’s focus on ceasefires while proxies proliferate.
Trump’s policies amplify this “new normal.” His rebranding of the Pentagon as the “War Department” and tariff wars with China signal a confrontational stance. While claiming to end “six or seven wars,” including Israel-Iran and India-Pakistan ceasefires, his record is mixed: Gaza and Ukraine persist, and new fronts—like cartel wars in Mexico—emerge. Vision of Humanity’s 2025 GPI dubs this “The Great Fragmentation,” with global peace declining 5% annually. Trump’s failure to restrain Israel’s escalations, per Politico, suggests he’s less peacemaker than enabler of a fractured, war-prone world.
Does Trump Support the New Normal of Perpetual Conflict?
Trump’s rhetoric champions peace: “No endless wars,” he declared, citing Afghanistan’s 2021 end. Yet, his actions—or inactions—tell a different story. By not condemning Israel’s strikes, he effectively endorses a model where might trumps law. His administration’s support for Israel’s Iran campaign, despite initial reluctance, and his silence on Gaza’s humanitarian crisis embolden Netanyahu. NPR notes Trump’s interventions conclude some conflicts but ignite others, like Latin American operations.
On X, @416Bry mocked Trump’s Nobel aspirations amid “9 new wars,” reflecting skepticism of his peacemaker claims. AP fact-checks reveal ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria, undermining Trump’s “seven wars ended” narrative. His “peace through strength” doctrine—evident in tariff threats and military posturing—normalizes low-grade conflicts, aligning with a world where wars are not anomalies but fixtures. Trump supports this new normal when it serves U.S. interests, but his failure to curb Israel’s provocations risks a global wildfire.
Peacemaker or Powder Keg?
Donald Trump’s 2025 presidency stands at a pivotal juncture. His refusal to condemn or restrain Israel’s aggressive actions—from Qatar to Iran—undermines his peacemaker rhetoric, positioning him as a potential catalyst for a new wave of world wars. International law, meant to curb unilateralism, falters without enforcement, and Trump’s inaction signals tacit approval of a dangerous precedent. If every nation follows Israel’s lead, the world risks a cascade of conflicts, from proxy wars to nuclear brinkmanship. The “new normal” of 2025—fragmented, volatile, and war-torn—bears Trump’s imprint, not as a unifier but as an enabler of chaos. Diplomacy, not complicity, is the only path to avert a global catastrophe.
Note: This article/analysis does not reflect the policy of The Think Tank Journal. It is solely based on the author’s personal opinion and research.
