After decades of dominating the Middle East by causing, engaging in, and at times trying to stop wars, the key question remains: can the US establish lasting peace in the region?
The peace-making business
Washington sees the Middle East as its ‘own’ region. Donald Trump’s first visit as the US President, in his both terms, was to the Middle East. There is little denying that the combination of hard power, i.e., military bases scattered throughout the region, and soft power, i.e., economic relations with the Gulf states, the US has in the region is probably unmatched. Thus far, little of this influence has been useful for making peace in the region. Donald Trump made a fatal mistake by sponsoring Abraham Accords. It ignited conditions for the ongoing Israeli war on Gaza, which has killed several thousand innocent civilians and destroyed infrastructure in Gaza. Still, Donald Trump decided to support Israel against Iran by dropping the so-called ‘bunker buster’ bombs on Iranian nuclear infrastructure. Israel’s war with Iran, too, was a direct consequence of the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. All these actions contributed to conflict, death, and destruction.
But when Donald Trump announced a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, he claimed that permanent peace will follow soon. In effect, he claimed that ‘peace-making’ was firmly in his hands. How he and his administration will pursue and implement peace, however, remains a mystery. To begin with, the Trump administration needs to learn from the past mistakes that various US administrations made that led to conflicts.
Mistakes: Can Washington learn from them?
The 2015 nuclear agreement with Iran was killed by the Trump administration’s unilateral withdrawal from it. It made Iran deeply suspicious about making any future deal with the US. Because it was the US that withdrew from the multilateral pact—and because it was European states that also failed to uphold the pact they negotiated and signed with Iran—they share the primary responsibility for cultivating trust. Therefore, Washington and its European allies will need to make sure that any new deal with Iran includes provisions against unilateral withdrawals by any signatory state, including Iran itself. There is no alternative to indicating to Iran Western strategic credibility and assurance.
Secondly, to make any deal with Iran and ensure peace, there is little denying that the new deal has to be more international in its scope, i.e., its signatories must include non-western international powers, such as China and Russia and even states like Saudi Arabi, as its guarantors. A solely West-backed deal failed to prevent the war. A solely West-backed deal could still fail to bear the weight of changing geopolitical landscapes in the future. If Gulf states—which are willingly or unwillingly in the line of fire, as Iran’s attack on the US airbase in Qatar showed—support the deal by becoming a direct party to it, they will be able to ensure a) that no further military action is taken against Iran ever, and b) Iran does not violate the pact’s terms and conditions. Gulf states will be keen to support any deal that can ensure peace, for peace is what these states need to accomplish the massive transformations, e.g., Saudia’s vision 2030, that they are currently undertaking. China will be keen to support such a deal because peace in the Middle East because of its dependence on oil supplies. Almost 45% of China’s oil supplies pass through the Strait of Hormuz. Russia needs peace in the Middle East to ensure stable and least volatile oil market.
Restraining Israel
Achieving lasting peace in the Middle East is not possible without addressing and restraining the military posture of Israel. For decades, the US has served as Israel’s primary military benefactor, providing billions of dollars in annual aid, along with advanced weaponry and emergency military support during times of conflict. These policies have, intentionally or not, enabled Israeli military actions that escalate regional tensions and perpetuate instability.
This dynamic must change if Washington is serious about fostering durable peace. While countries such as Iran may tolerate US military aid to Israel under peacetime conditions, a key concern remains: the perception that the US will unconditionally support Israeli unilateral military initiatives, particularly those targeting Iranian interests. This perception erodes trust and increases the likelihood of preemptive or retaliatory actions by Iran and its allies.
A notable example is the recent conflict, during which the Trump administration initially signaled a reluctance to become militarily involved. However, Israel successfully leveraged diplomatic pressure to draw the US into direct military engagement, culminating in strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities. This episode underscores how US support, even when initially restrained, can be maneuvered into backing escalatory action.
To prevent such outcomes, US policy must shift from automatic military alignment with Israel toward a more balanced regional approach. This includes setting clear limits on military aid conditional upon restraint and adherence to international law. Such a recalibration would not only reduce the likelihood of conflict with Iran but also enhance US credibility as a neutral actor committed to regional peace.
Currently, the overt asymmetry in US policy allows Israel to operate with disproportionate influence, largely due to the implicit security guarantees it receives from Washington. Without recalibrating this dynamic, any effort to broker peace in the Middle East will likely remain incomplete and unsustainable. Without such rethinking, the US will remain a force for instability, death, and destruction in the region.
Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs
