By Dr Majid Khan<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Melbourne (London Post) <\/strong>– As Donald J. Trump resumes the Oval Office in 2025, his second tenure as the 47th President of the United States is already shaping up as an assertive continuation of the disruptive diplomacy that defined his first term. From forging peace pacts in the Middle East to recalibrating relations with adversarial states like Russia and North Korea, Trump has positioned himself as a president unafraid to challenge diplomatic orthodoxy, often with seismic global effects.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While critics question the sustainability of his methods, Trump\u2019s supporters hail his ability to move stagnant geopolitical conflicts toward negotiation tables. This retrospective analysis explores the former and current president\u2019s imprint on global peace efforts, tracing key milestones in U.S. foreign policy from his return to office in 2025 back to the foundation laid during his first term beginning in 2017.<\/p>\n\n\n\n With Trump\u2019s return to the White House, familiar rhetoric has resurfaced. \u201cPeace through strength\u201d has again become the guiding maxim. However, in the context of 2025\u2019s fluid geopolitical landscape, Trump\u2019s renewed mandate carries a sharper focus on closing open-ended conflicts and brokering what he calls \u201creal deals\u201d in troubled regions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Topping his second-term foreign policy docket is the Russia-Ukraine war. Within weeks of taking office, Trump held phone conversations with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Declaring, \u201cThis war should never have started \u2014 and it ends now,\u201d Trump announced a peace proposal favoring neutrality for Ukraine and limited NATO entanglement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the proposal drew fire for allegedly legitimizing Russian territorial gains, Trump defended it as a \u201crealistic framework\u201d to end bloodshed. Talks in Istanbul, brokered by his emissaries, were launched under a strict timeline, a classic Trump tactic designed to exert pressure. His insistence on conditionality and deadlines echoes his broader diplomatic style: transactional, high-stakes, and press-driven.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Arguably, no legacy looms larger than the Abraham Accords. Originally signed in 2020, these normalization agreements between Israel and Arab nations such as the UAE and Bahrain now serve as the cornerstone of Trump\u2019s Middle East strategy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Back in the region this May, Trump personally lobbied Saudi Arabia\u2019s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman to join the accords, calling it \u201cthe final piece in the regional peace puzzle.\u201d Additionally, his unprecedented meeting with Syrian interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa marked the administration\u2019s first direct overture toward Damascus since the civil war began.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNormalization is the path forward,\u201d Trump told reporters in Riyadh. \u201cA strong, united Middle East doesn\u2019t need outside wars.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n Diplomatic insiders describe these efforts as \u201cAbraham Accords 2.0\u201d, aimed at building a regional bloc against Iranian influence while incentivizing economic cooperation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s initial exit strategy from Afghanistan was codified in the February 2020 Doha Agreement, which set a timetable for full U.S. withdrawal. Though the final pullout was executed during the Biden administration and met with chaos, Trump has repeatedly asserted that his framework would have ensured a \u201cdignified exit without collapse.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In Iraq, he oversaw troop reductions while reinforcing counterterrorism collaboration with Baghdad. \u201cNo more forever wars,\u201d he declared, summarizing a policy of calculated disengagement while retaining strike capabilities against resurgent terror cells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s diplomatic outreach in South Asia remains underreported but consequential. In 2025, he reiterated claims of helping avert conflict between India and Pakistan, linking trade incentives to peace initiatives. His remark \u2014 \u201cTalked trade, stopped them from fighting\u201d \u2014 sparked both praise and skepticism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The U.S. Commerce Secretary later testified that trade leverage had indeed played a role in defusing tensions during a border standoff, crediting Trump\u2019s hands-on involvement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though no formal treaty emerged, the Trump White House facilitated backchannel diplomacy that contributed to a fragile but ongoing ceasefire between the nuclear rivals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s engagement with Pyongyang began with saber-rattling and culminated in history-making summits. His meetings with Kim Jong-un in Singapore (2018) and Hanoi (2019) marked the first time a sitting U.S. president met with a North Korean leader. Although denuclearization goals remained elusive, the summits dialed down regional tension and shifted the narrative from hostility to cautious engagement.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2025, Trump has expressed interest in reactivating the North Korea channel, citing his personal rapport with Kim. \u201cNo one else got them to the table. We did,\u201d he noted during a Fox News interview this April.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Analysts remain divided \u2014 some see potential for renewed diplomacy; others view it as a stalled enterprise repackaged for headlines.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s evolving stance on Syria reflects a pragmatic pivot. In his first term, he ordered targeted airstrikes following a chemical attack but resisted full-scale intervention. \u201cWe hit them hard and got out,\u201d he said in 2017, framing it as a warning shot rather than a shift in doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Now, in a rare move, Trump is openly engaging with Syrian authorities. His 2025 meeting with Ahmed al-Sharaa marked the first U.S. overture toward reestablishing diplomatic channels \u2014 possibly a precursor to re-integrating Syria into the Arab fold under the umbrella of the Abraham Accords.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Though sanctions remain in place, Trump\u2019s rhetoric signals a softening posture, especially if Syria cooperates on counterterrorism and distances itself from Iranian proxies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump\u2019s unorthodox diplomacy began even before he assumed office. During the 2016 campaign, he floated the idea of thawing relations with Russia; a stance that would shadow his presidency and fuel controversy. Despite internal resistance, he pursued summit diplomacy, most notably with Putin in Helsinki in 2018, arguing: \u201cIt\u2019s better to talk than to escalate.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In 2018, he relocated the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, drawing widespread condemnation but also paving the way for the Abraham Accords by realigning U.S.-Israel policy as a fixed constant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Whether revered as a peacemaker or reviled as a disruptor, Donald Trump\u2019s global footprint is indelible. His foreign policy has upended diplomatic norms, emphasizing leader-to-leader rapport, economic bargaining chips, and deal-centric diplomacy over institutional processes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Critics argue that this approach risks short-term gains at the cost of long-term stability. Supporters counter that Trump\u2019s methods broke impasses others had failed to touch. As Trump often states, \u201cYou don\u2019t make peace by sitting on your hands.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a world increasingly defined by multipolar tensions and realpolitik, Trump\u2019s presidency, past and present; offers a case study in how unorthodox diplomacy can, at times, yield unexpected and lasting results. <\/p>\n\n\n\n INPS Japan\/ London Post<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" By Dr Majid Khan Melbourne (London Post) – As Donald J. Trump resumes the Oval Office in 2025, his second tenure as the 47th President of the United States is already shaping up as an assertive continuation of the disruptive diplomacy that defined his first term. From forging peace pacts in the Middle East to […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":9004,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[40,16,93,32,29],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-9003","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-global-regions","8":"category-news","9":"category-politics","10":"category-regions","11":"category-viewpoints"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9003","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9003"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9003\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9005,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9003\/revisions\/9005"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/9004"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9003"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9003"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/inpsjapan.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9003"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Middle East<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Afghanistan and Iraq<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
South Asia<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
North Korea<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Syria<\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n