Trump’s recent remarks at a Hanukkah ceremony at the White House, on the surface framed as a call for global unity against the “forces of evil” and “Islamic extremist terrorism,” in reality lay bare the fragility of US foreign and domestic policy. A president who came to power promising to end wars is now making such claims at a time when not only have wars failed to end, but conflicts remain active and expanding—from Gaza and Ukraine to Africa and Southeast Asia. This very contradiction downgrades Trump’s assertions from a genuine security initiative to little more than a political pretext.
Moreover, the order for a “total blockade” of oil tankers linked to Venezuela, coupled with branding the country’s government as terrorist, shows that a policy of maximum pressure and interventionism remains firmly on Washington’s agenda. These moves are not rooted in peace but follow the same logic of “peace through war,” a logic that reveals the true nature of US national security strategy under Trump.
Scandal of Promise to End Wars
Trump has repeatedly claimed to have brought eight wars around the world to an end—an assertion that the persistence of conflicts has turned into a clear-cut scandal. The war in Gaza, the Ukraine crisis, tensions between India and Pakistan, African conflicts, and regional crises in Southeast Asia all stand as stark evidence of the failure of this promise. In such circumstances, promoting the notion of a “union against Islamic extremism” is less a coherent strategy than a tool for deflection—shifting responsibility for failures onto imagined enemies.
This approach is particularly evident in relation to Islamic countries, where military and political support for the Zionist regime remains an inseparable pillar of US policy. From this perspective, claims of reduced focus on West Asia are effectively invalidated, as the on-the-ground behavior of the United States and its allies points in the opposite direction.
A New Order and the Imperative of Strength
Against this backdrop, Trump’s recent claims about forging a global consensus against Iran and the Resistance Front stem not from strength but from passivity and crisis. Yet this passivity does not mean a retreat from hostility. West Asia remains a strategic priority for Washington, and interventionist policies will continue. Experience has shown that relying on US promises and its professed diplomacy yields nothing but intensified pressure.
The only effective course lies in comprehensive strengthening—across economic, political, security, and military spheres—alongside reinforcing convergence among independent actors. The emergence of a new global order centered on countries such as Iran, China, Russia, and the BRICS members constitutes a structural response to American unilateralism, one capable of reshaping imposed equations and altering the balance of power.
NOURNEWS