Trump, the Middle East, and the UN’s Crisis of Credibility
The Middle East, a land burdened with wars and unresolved disputes, has long been a testing ground for international diplomacy. Palestine and Kashmir stand out as symbols of the United Nations’ repeated failures. Into this troubled stage stepped Donald Trump — a president with a showman’s flair, a businessman’s bargaining instincts, and an eye fixed firmly on both domestic politics and his own place in history.
Trump often spoke of “ending endless wars.” Behind that rhetoric was a personal desire for the Nobel Peace Prize, a trophy that would elevate him into the league of great statesmen. He wanted to be remembered as the man who brought peace where others had failed. Yet his actions painted a different picture. His administration denied entry to New York for Mahmoud Abbas, the President of the Palestinian Authority, blocking him from attending a UN General Assembly session on Palestine. Silencing the voice of Palestine while amplifying Israel’s narrative told the world where Washington’s loyalties lay.
That loyalty was not accidental. At home, Trump’s survival in politics depended on safeguarding Israel and aligning with the powerful Zionist lobbies that shape America’s Congress, media, and think tanks. Criticizing the U.S. president, the Senate, or even religion may be tolerated in America, but to question Israel remains the one unforgivable sin in public discourse. Netanyahu’s frequent diatribes against Muslims and liberals found an echo in Trump’s speeches, a clear demonstration of how closely the U.S. president followed the Israeli prime minister’s script.
Trump’s international conduct was equally controversial. In his UNGA addresses, he mocked London’s Mayor Sadiq Khan and earlier singled out Zohran Mumdani, a Muslim politician in New York. During his London visit, Sadiq Khan was deliberately excluded from the state dinner. These actions revealed more than personal grudges — they reflected a worldview shaped by suspicion of Muslims and amplified by Israel’s agenda.
But perhaps the most telling aspect of Trump’s UN narrative was not what he said, but what he ridiculed. He complained about the malfunctioning teleprompter and even the elevators at the UN headquarters, while ignoring the organization’s far deeper malfunctions. The UN has consistently failed to resolve the Palestinian and Kashmiri crises, not because of broken machines, but because of a broken system — the veto power.
Here lies the heart of the problem. Time and again, when the majority of the UN General Assembly stood united against Israeli actions, the United States used its veto in the Security Council to shield its ally. Democracy within the UN collapses at the stroke of a single veto. This flaw mirrors the collapse of the League of Nations and threatens to turn the UN into nothing more than a debating club. If Trump was serious about restructuring the UN, then the first and most urgent reform must be a reconsideration of the veto power. Without it, the dream of a peaceful world will remain empty rhetoric.
Funding has also become a weapon. The U.S. is the largest contributor to the UN, but Trump cut funding significantly, holding the institution hostage to Washington’s political will. This raised serious questions: should the UN remain in New York, under constant U.S. pressure? Or should it be moved to Europe, to a more neutral ground? And why should the financial lifeline of global governance depend on one country alone? A more balanced system — where each nation contributes according to its GDP — could finally give the UN the independence it desperately needs.
In the end, Trump’s Middle East policy was a mixture of ambition, bias, and political expediency. Pressured by Muslim leaders, urged by Europeans, and tempted by the lure of a Nobel Peace Prize, he still chose the path of one-sided loyalty to Israel. His speeches and actions revealed the depth of Zionist influence in American politics and the weakness of the UN in confronting it.
The tragedy is not Trump alone. The tragedy is an international order where peace is blocked not by the will of nations, but by the veto of one. Unless the UN reforms this structural flaw, it will remain a stage for speeches — not solutions — and the people of Palestine, Kashmir, and beyond will continue to pay the price.
