In his second term, Trump has re-emerged on the world stage as though global politics had set up a triad of crises just for his performance. Iran, Ukraine and Gaza have become not merely arenas of diplomacy but launch pads for his long-standing ambition to win the Nobel Peace Prize. Yet behind the spectacle lies a strategy driven less by conflict resolution than by the manipulation of public perception and global expectations.
Over the past nine months, Trump has crafted a cyclical, tactical foreign policy — spotlighting one crisis at a time while stepping back from the other two to create fresh headlines. He initially channeled his energy into reviving talks with Iran, but after several failed rounds of indirect negotiations, abruptly raised the “peace flag” in Ukraine, touting a near deal with Russia. When that, too, ran into deadlock, he pivoted to Gaza, now casting himself as the “great mediator” of Middle East peace.
In truth, Trump’s efforts are not aimed at ending wars, but at staging their end. He understands that in international politics, the image of a peacemaker can be more valuable than peace itself. That is why he repeatedly declares that an agreement is “on the verge of being signed” — without taking any genuine steps towards resolving the crises. His method resembles media choreography and market psychology more than serious diplomacy.
Trump has now returned to the Gaza file after relative setbacks with Iran and Ukraine. His latest proposal to end the Gaza war — announced after meetings with officials from eight Arab and Muslim countries — reflects more of a personal initiative than a collective consensus. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu skillfully reshaped the plan to suit Israel’s interests, while Arab states, whose concerns were omitted from the final draft, gave it only symbolic backing. Still, the media storm Trump stirred up put unprecedented pressure on Hamas to respond.
Hamas’s reply days ago, however, complicated the game. Its conditional, calculated approval tossed the ball back into Washington’s court. Expecting an outright rejection, Trump suddenly found himself in a dilemma: his public “welcome” of the response looked like a tactical retreat to save face, yet it also temporarily eased international pressure on Hamas. In effect, Trump inadvertently helped preserve the balance he had sought to overturn.
Outwardly, the US president claims his plan leaves no room for further negotiation. But in reality, talks over the details begin today in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt — where all sides know that the outcome will depend less on diplomacy at the table than on Trump’s willingness to press Netanyahu. Israel has so far deftly dodged US pressure, and if its goal this time is limited to freeing hostages without halting the war, the Sharm el-Sheikh process will hit another dead end.
Trump’s personal drive to secure a “peace deal” before 10 October carries a different meaning altogether. That date, for him, is not a diplomatic deadline but a golden opportunity to rebrand himself as the “savior of world peace.” Success could bolster his bid for a Nobel and shape a narrative of a president who rescued the world from three wars — though in reality, none of them has ended. Strategically, Trump is practicing what might be called pendulum diplomacy: a foreign policy built not on stability, but on the orchestration of serial crises. He whips each one into public frenzy, then suspends it midair and moves to the next — ensuring constant media attention and keeping every file open, never resolved.
The problem is that such diplomacy erodes trust over time. Neither Moscow believes his pledges on Ukraine, nor Tehran his unofficial channels, nor even Tel Aviv his consistency. This mutual distrust has turned Trump’s foreign policy into a kind of political tightrope act — one in which a single misstep could trigger a fall.
Now all eyes are on Sharm el-Sheikh. If Trump can broker a genuine truce in Gaza, he will not only regain credibility on the international stage but also return to the other two dossiers with renewed leverage. But if the outcome amounts to little more than a few hostages freed and a vague joint statement, it will mark his third diplomatic failure in less than a year.
For Trump, the Nobel Peace Prize is less an idealistic goal than a tool to rebrand himself — to replace the image of a combative president with that of a peacemaker. Yet in the real world, he remains the same showman who sees crisis not as a threat but as an opportunity for performance. And in that performance, peace may be just another prop, not the final act.
NOURNEWS