The Middle East—a cradle of history, culture, and geopolitical contradictions—has repeatedly witnessed alluring promises of peace that ultimately sank into the whirlpool of its complex realities. The doctrine of “peace through strength,” which became a central pillar of U.S. foreign policy in the region during Donald Trump’s second presidential term, relies on displays of military might, economic sanctions, and aggressive diplomacy. It claims to tame rogue actors and bring stability to a turbulent region. However, the history of the Middle East, from the failure of “maximum pressure” policies to the inability of the Abraham Accords to resolve the Palestinian conflict, demonstrates that such an approach not only fails to deliver lasting peace but often fuels instability and heightens tensions.
The strategy of “peace through strength” is based on the assumption that military posturing and economic pressure can alter the behavior of regional players or compel them to cooperate. This approach was tested during Trump’s first term through the “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, beginning with the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018. The goal was to force Iran into negotiations by imposing crippling sanctions, but the outcome was quite the opposite. A 2024 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) confirms that Iran has enriched uranium to 60%, just a step away from weapons-grade. This advancement not only signals the failure of the pressure campaign to contain Iran’s nuclear program but also escalated regional tensions. Moreover, the 2020 assassination of Qassem Soleimani—intended as a show of strength—did not weaken Iran but rather empowered its proxy forces, including Hezbollah and Iraqi militias. A 2024 UN Security Council report confirms that these groups expanded their operations following Soleimani’s death.
The Abraham Accords, hailed in 2020 as a major achievement of power-driven diplomacy, are another illustration of the limitations of this approach. These agreements, which normalized relations between Israel and countries like the UAE and Bahrain, were largely facilitated through U.S. economic and military incentives. However, they ignored the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leading to increased violence in the West Bank and Gaza. UN reports from 2025 indicate that violence surged in these areas post-Accords, as Palestinians felt sidelined. This underscores that peace achieved by privileging some parties while excluding others is neither durable nor just—it fosters mistrust and unrest. An analysis by the Middle East Institute (March 2025) likewise emphasizes that the marginalization of the Palestinian issue has rendered the Abraham Accords fragile and incapable of withstanding regional shocks.
The Middle East is a region where history, identity, and national interests are so deeply intertwined that power-centric solutions often prove ineffective. Regional rivalries—such as the Iran-Saudi conflict or the Israeli-Palestinian struggle—are rooted in complex historical and identity-based issues that cannot be resolved through military or economic coercion. Unconditional U.S. support for Israel, a hallmark of Trump 2.0’s power-based approach, has eroded public trust across the Arab world. Pew Research Center polls in 2024 show that 72% of respondents in Arab countries perceive U.S. policies as biased and destabilizing. This distrust has only deepened with recent developments, such as Trump’s controversial proposal to relocate Gaza’s population to Egypt and Jordan and transform Gaza into the “Middle East Riviera.” The plan, strongly opposed by Egypt, Jordan, and Palestinian officials, has been condemned not only as impractical and illegal but also as an attempt to redefine the Palestinian issue as a humanitarian crisis rather than a political one.
Trump 2.0’s aggressive policies—including increased U.S. military presence in the region and threats of strikes against Iran—have exacerbated rather than reduced tensions. An April 2025 analysis by the Middle East Institute notes that Trump’s abrupt announcement of “direct” talks with Iran, while simultaneously threatening military action, sowed confusion and distrust among regional allies, including Israel. This oscillation between threats and diplomacy reflects the absence of a coherent strategic framework in Trump’s foreign policy. Additionally, U.S. military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen and support for Israeli operations in Gaza—disregarding their human and political consequences—have further fueled instability. A February 2025 Newsweek analysis warns that such actions have increased the risk of direct conflict between Israel and Iran.
One of the most significant flaws of the “peace through strength” doctrine is its failure to build trust among regional actors. Lasting peace requires frameworks that account for the concerns of all parties involved, but a power-based approach often strengthens one side at the expense of another. The Abraham Accords, by excluding Palestinians, contributed to growing distrust among Arab societies. In contrast, more successful examples—such as the 1978 Camp David Accords between Egypt and Israel—demonstrate the importance of inclusive diplomacy. That agreement, reached through U.S. mediation and extensive negotiations, resulted in a durable peace because it addressed the concerns of both parties. Similarly, the 2015 JCPOA negotiations, which involved global powers and Iran, effectively curbed Iran’s nuclear program until the U.S. withdrawal in 2018. IAEA reports confirm that Iran complied with the deal until that point. This success highlights the superiority of multilateral diplomacy over unilateral pressure.
The “peace through strength” doctrine has not only failed to resolve Middle Eastern conflicts but has also contributed to economic and political instability. While broad sanctions against Iran pressured its economy, they also strengthened nationalist narratives in Tehran. A 2024 World Bank report shows that Iran has mitigated some of the sanctions’ impact by expanding trade with China and Russia. Furthermore, Trump’s aggressive economic policies—including broad tariffs on regional countries, such as a 17% tariff on Israeli goods—have created economic volatility and eroded allies’ trust. A 2025 Brookings Institution analysis notes that Chinese investments in regional infrastructure have grown significantly since 2018, signaling a decline in U.S. influence in favor of rivals like China and Russia.
The continuation of power-based policies risks further escalation. Statements by U.S. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce—that “Iran’s threat to expel IAEA inspectors contradicts its claim of a peaceful nuclear program”—and the response by Iran’s atomic agency spokesperson Behrouz Kamalvandi—that “no limitations exist on enrichment under the safeguards framework”—highlight the current stalemate. These disagreements underscore the need for diplomatic dialogue, not threats and pressure.
The doctrine of “peace through strength,” by ignoring the complexities of the Middle East, has repeatedly failed. Experiences such as maximum pressure on Iran, the Abraham Accords, and unrealistic proposals like relocating Gaza’s population reveal that military and economic might without inclusive diplomacy leads to instability. The Middle East needs frameworks that consider all sides and focus on building trust. Successful cases like Camp David and the JCPOA show that while multilateral diplomacy is difficult, it can yield lasting results. For the United States, shifting from imposing power to facilitating dialogue would not only reduce tensions but also restore its role as a credible mediator.