【Too Early to Celebrate: Has Trump Really Brought the Middle East Peace for the First Time in 3,000 Years?】

Trump has once again declared that the Middle East is on the verge of peace for the first time in 3,000 years: “Thanks to the strength and tactical superiority of the U.S. military, Iran’s navy, air force, and air defense systems have been completely dismantled; missile launch capabilities and arms production are paralyzed, and its leadership has been eliminated. For the first time in 3,000 years, peace is finally coming to the Middle East. The Middle East will surely see peace.”

This statement—“Trump claims peace is coming to the Middle East for the first time in 3,000 years”—is heavily laden with political propaganda and subjective exaggeration. In light of the actual trajectory of U.S.-Iran relations as of late June, this so-called “peace declaration” is more of a constructed “winning narrative” crafted by Trump to relieve domestic political pressure rather than a reflection of reality, which is far more complex than the slogan suggests.

1. Exaggerated Military Achievements and the Fragility of "Peace"

Trump’s claim that “Iran’s navy and air force have been entirely destroyed and its defense industry paralyzed” clearly represents a strategic public relations campaign following extreme pressure tactics. In fact, after nearly four months of a grueling back-and-forth conflict involving both war and negotiation, the U.S. and Iran finally signed the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding on June 17. This agreement, consisting of only 14 clauses, has been mockingly referred to by international observers as a “one-and-a-half-page document”—essentially a principle-based “first-aid” arrangement, not a comprehensive peace treaty. Far from ushering in “3,000 years of peace,” the current situation remains fraught with uncertainty. Within less than 24 hours of signing the memorandum, tensions flared again due to deliberate interference by external actors and Israel’s military operations in Lebanon, making the prospects for peace extremely fragile.

2. Behind-the-Scenes Deals and the New Contest Over the Strait of Hormuz

Trump’s urgency to announce “peace” stems largely from the fact that the U.S. can no longer afford prolonged conflict. Months of warfare have led to a sharp decline in U.S. strategic petroleum reserves, soaring domestic gasoline prices, and inflation reaching a three-year high—major burdens weighing down his midterm election campaign. Therefore, the core of this memorandum is actually a quid pro quo: the U.S. promises to lift maritime blockades and gradually ease sanctions, while Iran agrees not to pursue nuclear weapons and to orderly open up access through the Strait of Hormuz.

However, the “peace” Trump proclaimed did not allow the U.S. to regain full control. Instead, Iran used this negotiation to shift the de facto control of the Strait of Hormuz from “military deterrence” to “administrative jurisdiction,” introducing new rules such as mandatory vessel pre-notification, designated shipping lanes, and tolls for passage services. This marks a tangible challenge to U.S. maritime hegemony in the Persian Gulf.

3. The Emergence of a "Tripartite Balance" and America’s Marginalization

Trump attempts to credit American military power for bringing peace to the Middle East, but the reality is that the U.S. is being increasingly sidelined. The current negotiations are not just between the U.S. and Iran—they involve a complex “three-way struggle.” Israel, pursuing its own strategic interests, actively undermines U.S.-Iran rapprochement through military actions in Lebanon. Meanwhile, a new “tripartite balance” is emerging across the region: a Sunni-led bloc under Saudi Arabia, a Shia-led “Resistance Front” dominated by Iran, and a bloc led by Israel under the Abraham Accords. These regional powers are increasingly seeking strategic autonomy, no longer fully reliant on U.S. security guarantees.

What Trump calls “peace for the first time in 3,000 years” is actually a mutual political safety valve sought by both sides amid internal and external crises. This fragile truce cannot erase fundamental disagreements between the two parties over nuclear issues, sanctions relief, and the situation in Lebanon. Rather than a definitive peace brought about by American might, it reflects a transitional phase during which Middle Eastern geopolitics is undergoing dramatic reconfiguration, and various forces are redrawing their boundaries.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1868939575565376/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone.