From Gaza to Kashmir: The Limits of Trump’s Conflict-Resolution Diplomacy

Since its inception in 1901, the Nobel Peace Prize has primarily recognised contributions to four broad areas: arms control and disarmament, peace negotiations, the advancement of democracy and human rights, and efforts to build a more orderly and peaceful international system. In the 21st century, the Nobel Committee has also expanded its scope to include initiatives addressing climate change and environmental threats, viewing them as integral to global peace and stability. To date, the prize has been awarded 105 times to 139 laureates, comprising 92 men, 19 women, and 28 organisations.

The present U.S. President, Donald Trump, has repeatedly presented himself as a major contender for the award, with nominations since 2018 sparking debate over the credibility of his claims and the stability of the agreements he promotes through his diplomacy. Trump’s approach to conflict mediation has been framed around high-visibility interventions that he argues demonstrate his effectiveness as a dealmaker. This raises the central policy question: to what extent are these arrangements sustainable, and do they reflect meaningful conflict resolution?

In multiple cases, the agreements Trump facilitated or claimed have been short-lived or partial, often lacking mechanisms to address underlying political, territorial, or humanitarian issues. His assertions have also normalised a pattern in which U.S. involvement is presented as indispensable to regional stability, even when the concerned states deny external mediation. India, for example, publicly rejected Trump’s claim that he intervened in the India–Pakistan standoff, emphasising that no third-party role was requested or accepted.

According to the U.S. National Security Strategy: The Multipolar World (November 2025), President Trump is presented as having consolidated a peace-oriented legacy during his second term by prioritizing rapid conflict de-escalation across multiple regions. Building on the diplomatic foundation laid by the Abraham Accords during his first term, the report claims that within eight months of his return to office he facilitated negotiated outcomes in eight separate conflicts, including Cambodia–Thailand, Kosovo–Serbia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo–Rwanda, Pakistan–India, Israel–Iran, Egypt–Ethiopia, and Armenia–Azerbaijan, in addition to bringing the Gaza war to an end with the return of all surviving hostages. The document frames these interventions as a strategic effort to contain regional conflicts before they escalate into wider wars with cross-continental consequences, describing such preventive diplomacy as a central national security priority of the present US administration.

Earlier, at the 80th UNGA session in September 2025, Trump claimed he had “stopped seven wars,” referring to these conflicts. Many of these were not active wars, and several disputes continued despite temporary pauses. Armenia and Azerbaijan remain involved in border tensions. Fighting in eastern DRC persists, and Serbia still does not recognize Kosovo. Once again, U.S. airstrikes against Iran undermine claims of de-escalation, while tensions between Cambodia and Thailand reemerged shortly afterward, and the Nile water dispute remains unresolved. In each case, the claimed success did not lead to long-term stability.

Trump’s statements on the India–Pakistan crisis after the Pahalgam terror attack highlight similar inconsistencies. Initial claims of third-party mediation were later recast as assertions that he prevented nuclear escalation. India denied this version, while Pakistan endorsed it and later nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. These conflicting accounts raised questions about whether his involvement constituted genuine negotiation or political messaging.

Trump also proposed mediating the Israel–Palestine conflict, yet the U.S. remained the most prominent military supporter of Israel, providing $12.5 billion in 2024 alone. U.S. weapons were used in Gaza operations, complicating Washington’s ability to present itself as a neutral actor. The U.S. delegation also vetoed a Security Council ceasefire resolution, thereby undercutting Trump’s public claims to be a peace champion.

Domestically, the “Make America Great Again” immigration agenda contributed to heightened concerns about rights violations. Investigations into U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 2025 included the detention and forced return of over 300 South Korean engineers involved in a major bilateral technology collaboration. Such actions stood in contrast to Trump’s global messaging on peace and cooperation.

Although Trump did not receive the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, several countries, like Israel, Pakistan, Cambodia, and Japan, announced their intentions to nominate him. These nominations are driven more by strategic ties to Washington than by genuine assessments of conflict resolution. Undoubtedly, Trump’s diplomatic efforts have led to occasional de-escalation but have not addressed the root causes of conflicts. His claims to end wars demonstrate a pattern of short-term fixes, inconsistent messaging and policies, both domestically and internationally, that do not support long-term peacebuilding.