The author contends that Trump’s rival peace body overlooks the UN’s proven history of mediating conflicts like Suez and the Cuban Missile Crisis. Forgetting these lessons risks a return to uncontrolled escalation in an era of rising great-power tensions.
The article argues that U.S. oil firms need a stable, legitimate government in Venezuela to justify massive long-term investments. Trump’s plan to install a pliant regime ignores this, risking failure without democratic restoration and legal safeguards for investors.
The article compares masked ICE agents in Minneapolis to Hamas fighters, critiquing the “fire, ready, aim” tactics in both crises. It warns that Trump, Netanyahu, and Hamas are each fueling violence to win upcoming elections, risking lasting societal damage.
Friedman sees parallels between Trump’s divisive immigration tactics in Minneapolis and Netanyahu’s strategy in Gaza. He warns both leaders endanger democracy by fueling conflict to win elections, rather than uniting their nations.
The plan aims to leverage a ceasefire into broader Arab-Israeli normalization and a path to two states. However, implementing its complex terms requires daily diplomatic miracles amid profound distrust and active sabotage from all sides.
Retired Israeli pilots and security officials warn that the disproportionate bombing in Gaza is immoral and strategically reckless. They urge global Jewry to speak out before Israel becomes a pariah state, generating antisemitism rather than serving as a safe haven.
Friedman calls the conflict the “Worst War,” leaving both sides devastated. He argues the only viable solution is an international body to oversee Gaza and the West Bank, ensuring demilitarization and rebuilding Palestinian governance.
The article critiques Trump’s inconsistent China trade policy, highlighting how rash tariffs backfired when China threatened rare earth exports. This chaotic approach lacks the strategic leverage needed to address China’s manufacturing overcapacity.
America’s assertive China policy has cooled into defensive uncertainty, lowering tariffs and easing chip restrictions. This retreat signals a loss of confidence as policymakers confront China’s staggering dominance in green tech, infrastructure, and manufacturing scale.
Trump’s approach to China is starkly inconsistent, blending harsh threats with surprising concessions. This deliberate ambiguity keeps allies guessing and could reshape the Indo-Pacific balance of power for decades.