Siamak Naficy
Introduction
In recent weeks, President Donald Trump has actively engaged with multiple global crises, including brokering a ceasefire in Gaza, initiating talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and advocating for an end to the war in Ukraine. While some of his proposals, such as forcibly relocating Palestinians from Gaza or suggesting Canada join the U.S. as its 51st state, have been dismissed as unrealistic, his proactive approach raises a key question: Why has the Biden administration been so reluctant to pursue diplomatic solutions in Gaza and Ukraine, allowing Trump to position himself—rightly or wrongly—as a candidate for peace?
While there is no certainty that Trump’s diplomatic efforts will succeed—his plans for Gaza could further destabilize the region, and his outreach to Putin may not lead to concrete outcomes—the critical issue is not whether his initiatives will work, but that he is offering an alternative path. In contrast, the Biden administration has emphasized strengthening multilateral ties with allies like Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, while also leaning on figures with a history of interventionist policies. This has created a reluctance to push for an end to conflicts that have devastated civilians and destabilized entire regions.
No comments:
Post a Comment