Department of War and Peace Through Strength: America’s Trump World Order Regime – A Recipe for World Conflict

Department of War and Peace Through Strength: America’s Trump World Order Regime – A Recipe for World Conflict

By Mohd Azmi Abdul Hamid, President, MAPIM

7th September 2025

The Trump administration (2017–2021) marked a critical deviation in U.S. foreign policy, emphasizing “peace through strength” as the cornerstone of global order. While projecting an image of decisive power, this approach prioritized coercion, unilateral action, and transactional diplomacy over multilateralism and institutionalized conflict resolution. This paper analyzes the ideological underpinnings, strategic implementation, and global consequences of the Trump World Order, demonstrating that its methodology—while rhetorically aimed at peace—created structural conditions for heightened geopolitical instability. By examining specific case studies in Iran, North Korea, China, and the Middle East, the paper highlights how tactical victories often came at the expense of long-term stability and humanitarian outcomes.

1. Introduction

The twenty-first century has witnessed rapid globalization alongside persistent conflicts and humanitarian crises. In this context, the United States has traditionally positioned itself as both a guarantor of international security and a promoter of liberal norms. The Trump administration, however, redefined this role by adopting a doctrine of “peace through strength” that relied on a combination of military posturing, economic coercion, and personalized diplomacy. While the administration achieved notable tactical successes—such as the Abraham Accords in the Middle East or temporary de-escalation on the Korean Peninsula—these victories often undermined long-term stability, predictability, and multilateral cooperation. The Trump approach, emphasizing power projection over institutionalized negotiation, significantly altered the global geopolitical landscape. This essay explores the ideological foundations, practical implementations, and consequences of this paradigm, situating it within both regional and global contexts.

2. Ideological Foundations of Trump’s “Peace Through Strength”

Central to the Trump administration’s foreign policy was the belief that military superiority, economic leverage, and personal diplomacy could ensure global peace. Deterrence was viewed as a primary instrument of diplomacy, with military posturing and advanced weaponry deployed to project power and dissuade adversaries from challenging U.S. interests. This reliance on coercive capability reflected a broader ideological conviction that fear could prevent conflict, substituting institutional engagement with displays of strength.

Accompanying this strategic posture was a transactional view of diplomacy. Alliances, treaties, and international obligations were often evaluated primarily for immediate material or political gain rather than as mechanisms for enduring stability. Multilateral institutions and agreements were subordinated to U.S. autonomy and the pursuit of national advantage, reflecting a unilateralist orientation. Under the “America First” narrative, domestic political considerations and perceived national interest frequently shaped foreign policy priorities, sometimes at the expense of long-standing alliances and global humanitarian concerns. This blend of deterrence, transactionalism, unilateralism, and nationalist orientation formed the ideological core of Trump’s global strategy, defining both its reach and its limitations.

3. Case Studies of Implementation

The implementation of the “peace through strength” doctrine can be observed in several key arenas. In the case of Iran, the U.S. withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2018 disrupted the nuclear non-proliferation framework, while the imposition of “maximum pressure” sanctions intensified economic hardship for civilians, escalated regional tensions, and undermined prospects for diplomatic negotiation. Although intended to coerce compliance, these measures produced increased uncertainty in the Middle East and reinforced the potential for escalation.

On the Korean Peninsula, summitry with Kim Jong-un represented a highly personalized approach to diplomacy. While these meetings temporarily reduced immediate tensions, the absence of institutionalized verification and follow-up mechanisms left the region strategically volatile, demonstrating the risks of reliance on individual-level negotiation rather than systemic, multilateral processes.

In East Asia, economic coercion toward China through aggressive tariffs sought to recalibrate global trade balances in favor of the United States. While achieving some tactical leverage, these measures strained global supply chains and heightened geopolitical friction, incentivizing Chinese assertiveness, particularly in the South China Sea.

The Middle East witnessed significant diplomatic realignments, including recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and the establishment of the Abraham Accords. While these actions produced short-term diplomatic gains, they exacerbated regional polarization, alienated key actors such as the Palestinians, and intensified Iranian influence in regional politics. Across these cases, the Trump administration’s approach consistently favored immediate leverage over long-term stability, producing both tactical successes and enduring vulnerabilities.

4. Global Implications

The adoption of a unilateral, coercive, and transactional approach to diplomacy produced profound global consequences. Established multilateral norms and institutions—including the United Nations, NATO, and international legal frameworks—were marginalized, reducing collective capacity for conflict prevention and crisis management. This erosion of multilateralism was compounded by accelerated arms development, as rivals such as Russia and China responded to perceived gaps in U.S. leadership by modernizing and expanding their defense capabilities.

Tactical victories often produced long-term strategic uncertainty, particularly in the Middle East, East Asia, and Eastern Europe. Economic sanctions, proxy conflicts, and military posturing further exacerbated humanitarian crises, producing severe civilian suffering in Syria, Yemen, and Iran. In many instances, diplomacy was subordinated to the projection of power, highlighting the human costs of prioritizing coercion over negotiation and ethical responsibility.

5. Analysis: Why This is a Recipe for Conflict

The Trump World Order’s emphasis on coercion without negotiation undermined trust and predictability in international relations. Transactional alliances reduced credibility and encouraged adversarial opportunism, while the marginalization of international norms weakened mechanisms for conflict prevention. Moreover, the short-term focus on tactical gains often created cycles of tension and retaliation, producing structural conditions conducive to instability. By relying on unilateralism and personal diplomacy rather than institutionalized multilateral frameworks, the administration inadvertently fostered global insecurity, despite its rhetorical commitment to peace through strength.

6. Recommendations for Policy and Global Actors

Sustainable global peace requires a reorientation from unilateral, coercive strategies to approaches grounded in multilateralism, ethical consideration, and humanitarian awareness. Global actors must engage international institutions such as the United Nations and regional organizations as primary mechanisms for conflict resolution. Ethical frameworks, including humanitarian law and principles derived from moral and religious traditions, should guide the use of coercive power, ensuring civilian protection and minimizing human suffering. Alliances should be stabilized through trust-building rather than purely transactional arrangements, and the humanitarian consequences of sanctions and military strategies must be actively mitigated. Incorporating Islamic ethical perspectives, emphasizing justice, mercy, and the protection of vulnerable populations, can enhance both moral legitimacy and strategic effectiveness in global diplomacy.

7. Conclusion

The Trump World Order, predicated on the doctrine of “peace through strength,” underscores the perils of unilateral, coercive, and transactional diplomacy. While achieving temporary tactical victories, it intensified long-term geopolitical instability, weakened multilateral institutions, and exacerbated humanitarian crises. For diplomacy to contribute meaningfully to sustainable peace, it must integrate ethical considerations, multilateral cooperation, and a principled commitment to human dignity. Only by embedding these values into strategic planning can global actors mitigate conflict and promote a stable international order.