Donald Trump's Second Term: Impacts on Regional and International Peace and Stability

This is a synopsis of a comprehensive article discussing Donald Trump's second term and its implications for regional and international peace and stability.

It is said that history is the mirror of today. This holds true for Donald Trump’s current policies on international affairs and their potential impact on regional and global peace and stability. In reality, Donald Trump’s current foreign policy is a continuation of his first term, more expanded in scope, more aggressive in essence, and wider in range.

Donald Trump’s domestic and foreign policies are guided by the "America First" and "Peace Through Strength" perspectives. The approximately six months of his current term already reveal this fact. The essence of these propositions is that U.S. national interests are prioritized over international cooperation, and peace can be achieved through military strength.

What is the meaning of "America First," "priority to U.S. national interests over international cooperation," and "Peace Through Strength" when asserted by a rapidly declining sole superpower?

Undoubtedly, it means the U.S. seeks to retain its sole superpower position by any means necessary. It implies that no other country should rise as a global competitor to the U.S., nor should any nation claim primacy. All are expected to stand behind the U.S. and obey its rules.

The "America First" proposition automatically leads to protectionist trade policies, including hefty tariffs. The Trump administration has implemented this policy globally, creating a situation akin to a global trade war.

This perspective has also led the Trump administration to aggressively reinforce strict immigration policies, including border wall construction, asylum restrictions, travel bans, and reduced refugee admissions. To implement these policies effectively, immigration and border security have been closely linked to national security.

These anarchic immigration and border policies have faced mass opposition within the United States. In protest against these stringent policies, Los Angeles burned, and the flames of unrest spread rapidly to other major U.S. cities. Under the doctrine of "Peace Through Strength," Donald Trump deployed the National Guard and Navy to restore order. If necessary, he would not hesitate to use blatant force across America.

Donald Trump’s "America First" perspective is characterized by unilateral actions and a focus on U.S. strategic interests. The following facts illustrate how regressive and aggressive this proposition is: President Trump proposed the potential annexation of Canada, the purchase of Greenland, reclaiming the Panama Canal, renaming and initiating offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to bolster U.S. energy production, and even suggesting U.S. ownership of the West Bank and the relocation of Palestinians. His "Peace Through Strength" perspective clearly signals a willingness to pursue these aims by force.

Donald Trump’s Iran policy is aggressive, based on a "maximum pressure" strategy aimed at total subjugation. It is fundamentally Israel-oriented. During his first term, Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), re-imposed severe sanctions on Iran’s oil, banking, and military sectors, ordered the assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani in Iraq, launched cyberattacks, and targeted Iran’s nuclear program, military infrastructure, and missile development. He also diplomatically and economically isolated Iran in the Gulf region.

There is nothing fundamentally new in his Iran policy during the second term. Trump seems determined to achieve the objectives of his first term. Through Israel, he is attempting to fulfill these aims using military strength. If Israel fails, Trump is likely to involve the U.S. directly through military intervention.

Now, Trump, G7, and Netanyahu justify Israel’s military intervention in Iran as an act of self-defense. They claim that Iran’s uranium enrichment has reached a level capable of producing nuclear bombs and that such a development would pose an existential threat to Israel. Based on this narrative, they argue Iran must be stopped. However, this logic does not justify Israel’s preemptive military strikes.

Just as in the case of Iraq, the U.S. and Israel have used the IAEA as a tool to produce reports justifying attacks on Iran. Based on these predetermined reports, massive preemptive strikes were conducted on Iranian nuclear sites, resulting in damage and the assassination of over a dozen Iranian nuclear scientists. Such attacks constitute crimes against humanity, for which Trump and Netanyahu are responsible.

Nuclear weapons should not be encouraged but rather completely prohibited. Unlike conventional weapons, they endanger all life on Earth. Their production and use must be banned. All nuclear powers should dismantle their arsenals. This demand has long existed in anti-nuclear movements. Despite repeated commitments by nuclear powers to reduce arsenals, no significant progress has been made. Instead, the number of nuclear states is rising, and nuclear technologies are being upgraded.

To prevent the spread of nuclear weapons to new countries, two actions are essential: First, nuclear-armed countries must begin reducing their arsenals immediately. Second, military interventions by powerful nations against smaller, weaker nations must cease.

In today’s imperialist-globalized world, many small or weaker nations have lost their independence, sovereignty, or territorial integrity due to military interventions or external influence. In such a scenario, if nuclear weapons serve as a deterrent to safeguard sovereignty, these nations should have the right to develop them.

Iraq lost its sovereignty due to its inability to develop nuclear weapons. U.S.-led interventions destroyed the nation. The same rationale applies to Iran. Had Iran possessed nuclear weapons, Israel might not have dared to intervene. Pakistan’s continued existence, and even that of the former Soviet Union, can be attributed to their nuclear capabilities.

Therefore, as long as the imperialist-globalized order and U.S. superpower dominance exist, small and weaker nations must retain the right to develop nuclear weapons for self-defense.

Donald Trump is arguably the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history. Several facts demonstrate this: During his first term, he recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and moved the U.S. embassy there from Tel Aviv in 2018, despite international controversy. He recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights in 2019. He also facilitated the normalization of Israel’s relations with four Arab nations – the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco – through the Abraham Accords.

Trump also cut funding to UNRWA and closed the PLO mission in Washington, further weakening the Palestinian cause. These moves greatly empowered Israel and reshaped regional alliances to counter Iran.

Although the major portions of the 2021 and 2023-2024 Israel-Gaza conflicts occurred during Trump’s absence from the White House, his policies from the first term heavily influenced those events.

Trump’s Palestine policy is entirely aimed at shielding Israel’s strategic interests. His support for Israel’s genocidal intervention in Gaza reflects his desire to "own" the territory and transform it into a "Riviera of the Middle East."

Although he retracted the proposal of forced displacement of Palestinians under international pressure, this retraction was superficial. In reality, Trump is executing this plan through Netanyahu, who is implementing it via the genocide of Gazans.

It is well known that Donald Trump does not support a two-state solution. This indicates his intention to push the Middle East into a perpetual state of conflict.

Let me briefly touch upon the destabilizing factors in the Middle East. On the surface, Israel appears to be the primary destabilizing force. Continuous occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, settlement expansion, Gaza blockades, induced starvation, restrictions on movement, and repeated military operations have led to the displacement and suffering of Palestinians.

Additionally, Israel’s military conflicts with neighboring countries further destabilize the region.

However, we should not view Israel as the only destabilizing internal factor. The Middle East is a complex region with interlocking factors: Iran’s hostility towards Israel, intra-Arab conflicts, non-state actors, and rivalries between regional powers all contribute to the region’s volatility.

Despite this, Israel remains a major destabilizing internal factor. The day Israel realizes it is being used as a tool to fulfill U.S. strategic interests, and chooses an independent path, is the day the Middle East may finally find peace. The involvement of external powers, especially the U.S., has worsened the situation. U.S. arms sales, interventions, and diplomatic alignments with Israel have complicated regional dynamics.

The climax of this crisis is reflected in Israel’s recent preemptive wars against Iran, supported by the U.S. In defending itself, Iran is engaged in a just war to preserve its sovereignty.

The threat to global peace is not limited to the Middle East. Under the Trump administration, regions such as the Indo-Pacific, the South China Sea, Africa, Greenland, the Gulf of Mexico, Canada, and the Panama Canal face growing instability.

Trump views China’s rise and its strategic alliances with Russia, North Korea, and Iran as major threats. To prevent China from becoming a global competitor, Trump imposed tariffs, restricted tech access, and boosted U.S. military presence in the Indo-Pacific.

To preserve its unipolar status, the Trump administration used high tariffs, pressured NATO allies to increase defense spending, threatened reduced U.S. commitment to allies, and criticized EU dependence on U.S. defense and trade.

In the name of "America First," Trump prioritized fossil fuel production, rolled back environmental regulations, and withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. His administration weakened institutions like the UN, WHO, WTO, and the ICJ.

The contemporary world is shifting from a U.S.-led unipolar order to a multipolar one. This is driven by global power shifts, growing interconnectedness, and the failure of a single power to manage global crises like pandemics, climate change, terrorism, and migration.

Unilateral actions undermine multilateral institutions and increase conflict risk. Multilateralism, based on shared responsibility and cooperation, is the only sustainable path forward.

Yet, the U.S. continues to cling to its unilateral approach, heightening tensions and undermining cooperation. Trump’s foreign policy exemplifies this.

The U.S. will not peacefully relinquish its sole superpower status. The transition to multipolarity will be turbulent, marked by conflict, and possibly global war. Unity among supporters of a multipolar order is essential to ensure a relatively peaceful and swift transition.

The replacement of the present unipolar world situation with a multipolar one is good. However, we should not think that such a change is capable of eliminating present maladies such as inequality, exploitation and oppression between countries and among individuals, the contradiction between the social form of production and the private form of distribution, and wars. These exist equally in unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar world situations. In the imperialist-globalized world order, the difference between unipolar, bipolar, and multipolar systems is not qualitative but quantitative. They are all by-products of global imperialism. Therefore, to eliminate these maladies permanently, globalized imperialism must be eliminated – a task that is neither easy nor short-term, but rather prolonged and prone to conflict.

June 20, 2025

(Yogendra Dhakal,known by his pen name Ajay Sharma, and born on August 5, 1957 in Nepal, is a prolific writer, political analyst and intellectual dedicating himself to the cause of revolution through his writings as well as active involvement in the communist movement of Nepal for the last three and a half decades. He was jailed twice for political reasons, once in India in 1986, and then in Nepal in 1990 during the People's Movement. His political career began in the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal), where he actively worked for over twenty-five years. He regards the veteran communist leader Comrade Mohan Bikram Singh as his political mentor. Later, in 2006 Dhakal joined the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist). After the recent split in 2012, he supported the Mohan Baidya-led faction. For several years he was a Central Committee member of the same party. After initiating a prolonged two-line struggle against the left liquidationist line grown in the party leadership and party apparatus, he has now resigned from the party, and joined his previous party, the Communist Party of Nepal (Mashal). During the two-line struggle in the party, he was always on the side of the revolutionary. He has been firm and consistent in his revolutionary conviction in his writings and actions. He has also served as the Nepalese Ambassador to Australia, New Zealand, and the Fiji Islands from February 2008-December 2011. He has authored several books and articles, mostly on the theoretical aspects of Marxism-Leninism to arouse mass awareness, and then to expose the revisionists culpable of distorting the Marxism-Leninism-Mao Tse-tung thought to serve the interest of the exploiting class and countries.)