In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has often repeated that he has ended six wars in six months. A closer look at the conflicts that Trump claims to have ended reveals a mix of cases, from armed conflicts to diplomatic tensions.
In recent weeks, US President Donald Trump has often repeated that he has ended six wars in six months. A closer look at the conflicts that Trump claims to have ended reveals a mix of cases, from armed conflicts to diplomatic tensions.
KASHMIR: CRUISE WITH LIMITED EFFECT
It all started in May 2025 with a ceasefire between India and Pakistan over the conflict in Kashmir, a Region that has been bloody since 1947. After three weeks of fighting, Trump declared that he had brokered a deal. Pakistan thanked him and even asked to nominate him for the Nobel Peace Prize, while India said the US role was minimal. The conflict calmed down, but it is unclear how much influence Washington actually had.
RWANDA AND CONGO
In June, the White House unveiled an agreement between Rwanda and the Republic of Congo on economic cooperation and respect for territorial sovereignty. But the problem was that the M23, the main rebel group responsible for the violence in eastern Congo, was not a party. The agreement addresses neither the main actors nor the causes of the conflict, while it gives the United States the right to invest in the mineral sector. In July alone, according to the Uppsala Conflict Data Program, almost 400 people were killed after the agreement was signed.
ISRAEL-IRAN
After that, Trump said he had brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Iran after 12 days of fighting. In fact, the US itself had bombed Iranian military targets. Although the agreement reduced tensions, it looks more like a tactical pause than a step towards lasting peace. The paradox remains: can you be considered the one who achieved peace in a war that you helped escalate?
CAMBODIA-THAILAND: PEACE UNDER THE THREAT OF TARIFFS
A new clash erupted on the Cambodia-Thailand border in late July. The US, Malaysia and China pressed for a deal, while Trump threatened to break off trade talks and impose 36% tariffs. The deal was reached “as if by magic”, but it is fragile, as the parties now accuse each other of violations.
ARMENIA-AZERBAIJKHAN
On August 8, a peace agreement was finalized between Armenia and Azerbaijan. After decades of conflict, the two countries agreed to open a corridor through Armenia to the enclave of Nakhchivan. This corridor, called the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity (TRIPP)”, will be administered by the United States for 99 years, with investment rights. In this case, the United States can absolutely receive positive assessments, not only having intervened in a deadlocked conflict, but also having touched on fundamental issues.
THE SIXTH WAR?
It remains unclear what the sixth conflict is. One possibility is the dispute between Egypt and Ethiopia over the GERD dam, where Trump claims to have prevented a war, without an agreement and without declaring war. Another possibility is Serbia-Kosovo, where there was an earlier economic agreement and now Trump says he has “prevented war” through threats of tariffs.
PEACE AGREEMENT OR BUSINESS AGREEMENT?
Going through these agreements, it becomes clear that Trump has been involved in several escalating and hidden conflicts. But what was his motive? The agreements between Rwanda and Congo, as well as Armenia and Azerbaijan, have clear economic benefits for the United States. Is it ethical to act as a mediator in conflicts where you have economic interests?
A NEW WORLD ORDER AND A NEW TYPE OF PEACE MEDIATION?
At the same time that we are seeing an increase in peace agreements and ceasefires, we are also seeing an increase in inter-state conflicts. One possible explanation is the growing tension in the world order, as isolation and fear make attack the best form of defense, especially in border conflicts. The United States and Trump must take responsibility for some of this tension, which has been fueled by the Trump administration’s trade wars, foreign aid cuts, and its unpredictability. A paradoxical situation has arisen, with Trump engaging in negotiations where he himself has indirectly contributed to the escalation of the conflict.
PEACE ACHIEVED UNDER PRESSURE, IS IT SUSTAINABLE?
Finally, I repeat my question: Is it legitimate to use trade agreements and threats of tariffs to pressure the parties to make peace? On the one hand, this kind of pressure can weaken the sense of ownership of the agreement and the trust between the parties. On the other hand, it gives the parties a way to avoid criticism – they did not surrender to the enemy, but to Trump. And why are we not seeing the same kind of pressure on Israel to end the war in Gaza?
Does Trump’s approach represent a new, tougher, more ruthless kind of peace brokering – or is it simply political theater with one goal: winning the Nobel Peace Prize? When Trump claims to have prevented seven wars and also resolved three “pre-wars” – implying that the conflicts between India and Pakistan, and Iran and Israel could have escalated into nuclear wars, and that the conflict between Ethiopia and Egypt was in danger of escalating – his actions seem more like self-promotion than diplomacy.
As a side note: a “pre-war” is usually defined as a tense situation that has not yet escalated into open war. Technically, this term could be used for relations between Ethiopia and Egypt. But when definitions become as flexible as ambitions, perhaps it is not peace that is at stake, but the narratives about it.