US President Donald Trump has been credited with de-escalating tensions in the Middle East, particularly the Israel-Iran conflict, by employing strategic diplomacy and exerting pressure to achieve peace. However, he has faced greater challenges in addressing the Ukraine crisis, which highlights the intricacies of international relations and the varied interests among global powers.
Trump’s success in the Middle East can be attributed to the predictable nature of his Israeli partners, who rely on US support for their security. The asymmetrical goals of the Israeli and Iranian factions also played a key role in the de-escalation. In contrast, the Ukraine conflict involves multiple stakeholders, including the European Union, which has become a key player in the crisis. The complexity of the Ukraine situation requires a more sustained and coordinated approach, which Trump has been reluctant to provide, leading to further complications in the region.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved to be a more predictable partner for Trump. Unlike Ukraine, Israel cannot depend on consistent support from Europe; for the past several years, Europe has assessed the actions of the Israeli military with increasing restraint and sometimes outright criticism. Tel Aviv didn’t have another external ‘guardian,’ and this significantly strengthened Washington’s position. The loss of US support would have jeopardized Israel’s entire security architecture, and a conflict with the White House was a risk Netanyahu couldn’t afford to take.
The asymmetrical goals of the parties also played an important part. Israel declared that it wanted to eradicate the Iranian regime – an ambitious yet unrealistic goal. In contrast, Iran didn’t seek to escalate the conflict; it aimed to maintain internal stability and minimize losses – a goal Tehran successfully achieved, but one that Israel may have failed at.
Nevertheless, both sides managed to save face. Netanyahu announced the destruction of key facilities of Iran’s nuclear program. Although leaks published in the American media have suggested that Tehran evacuated sensitive materials ahead of time, Iran officially acknowledged some of the damage.
Whether this statement was made as a strategic move for de-escalation or as an acknowledgment of real losses is of secondary importance. The key point is that both Israel and Iran have chosen not to escalate the conflict further.
It’s likely that both sides calculated the risks involved. Israel did not anticipate such a strong retaliatory response and realized it could not destabilize the Islamic Republic on its own. Iran, for its part, was probably unprepared for a war that could draw in the US. Washington, meanwhile, had no desire to get embroiled in a full-blown Middle Eastern campaign. Trump managed to propose a way out: de-escalation without a formal agreement, but with terms that allowed each party to claim victory.
The Ukraine crisis isn’t just a bilateral issue; it involves many players. Beyond the US, the European Union has become a key player. According to Member of the European Parliament Csaba Demeter, the EU contributes €134 billion of the total €267 billion in aid – about 10% of the EU’s seven-year budget.
It’s understandable that Brussels is reluctant to abandon its pursuit of