Even as the war in Gaza rages on and the death toll surpasses 35,000, the Biden administration appears set on pursuing its vision of a Saudi-Israeli normalization deal that it sees as the path to peace in the Middle East.
But, the agreement that the administration is selling as a peace agreement that will put Palestine on the path to statehood and fundamentally transform the region ultimately amounts to a U.S. war obligation for Saudi Arabia that would also give Mohammed bin Salman nuclear technology.
As the Gaza War demonstrates, the Abraham Accords — which normalized relations between Israel and other Arab states — did not help bring peace to the Middle East. But instead of pushing for a ceasefire that could end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and limit the chances of a wider regional conflagration, Biden is pushing to continue the legacy of the Abraham Accords in a move that only increases the likelihood of American troops being sent to fight another war.
Learn more in this new video by the Quincy Institute’s Khody Akhavi:
Dear RS readers: It has been an extraordinary year and our editing team has been working overtime to make sure
that we are covering the current conflicts with quality, fresh analysis that doesn’t cleave to the mainstream
orthodoxy or take official Washington and the commentariat at face value. Our staff reporters, experts, and
outside writers offer top-notch, independent work, daily.
Please consider making a tax-exempt, year-end contribution to Responsible Statecraftso that we can continue this quality coverage
— which you will find nowhere else —
into 2026. Happy Holidays!
Blaise Malley is a freelance writer and a former Responsible Statecraft reporter. He is currently a MA candidate at New York University. His writing has appeared in The New Republic, The American Prospect, The American Conservative, and elsewhere.
Khody Akhavi is Senior Video Producer at the Quincy Institute. Previously he was Head of Video for Al-Monitor and covered the White House for Al Jazeera English, as well as produced films for the network’s flagship investigative unit.
Top photo credit: Kharkiv, Ukraine, September 30, 2024 Funeral and burial of Captain Maksym Kudrin, the company commander of the 123rd separate battalion. (Shutterstock/Jose Hernandez Camera 51)
As negotiations accelerate toward a compromise settlement to end the Ukraine war, the voices of the Ukrainians living through the daily horrors have in many ways been suppressed by unending maximalist rhetoric from those far from the frontlines.
The original 28-point working draft that set out an estimation of a compromise between Russian and Ukrainian positions met a harshresponse by those who have demanded no less than a complete Ukrainian victory and a decisive Russian defeat throughout this almost four-year-long war.
The draft peace plan has since been revised with input from Kyiv and various European capitals, evolving into several separate documents focused on resolving the war, establishing security guarantees for Ukraine, and outlining an economic recovery plan. Following Sunday’s meeting in Florida between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and their respective delegations, both leaders expressed confidence that while some “thorny” issues still remain, peace is now much closer, an assessment shared by the Kremlin.
While any compromise agreement ultimately reached will satisfy neither Russian nor Ukrainian maximalist demands, the foundations for a durable peace may now be on the table and within reach.
Throughout the devastating war and resulting chaos, Ukrainians living along both sides of the frontline have organized communities of informal services to help maintain relative order across the battle-scarred regions. A number of Ukrainians agreed to speak with Responsible Statecraft to share their thoughts on and hopes for a peaceful settlement and the opportunities for Ukraine to secure its future and achieve lasting peace. Pseudonyms have been used to protect the safety of those who agreed to talk with us.
For many Ukrainians who have lost relatives and loved ones, “war is not news headlines—it is everyday life,” says Maria, who lives in frontline northeastern Ukraine, part of which is currently under Russian control.
“The recent change in the U.S. administration and President Trump has sparked hope for a possible resolution of the conflict with Russia and the signing of a peace agreement. The recently published 28-point U.S. peace plan has once again made people talk about the possibility of ending the war,” says Maria who describes herself as an “ordinary woman” living in a frontline region where security is a “key issue.” Facing the daily consequences of war, she hopes for “a ceasefire, silence, and the chance to simply live without constant fear. We want a sustainable, long-term peace — not on paper, but in reality: a peace that saves lives, allows destroyed cities to be rebuilt, and restores a sense of security, dignity, and a future.”
According to a Gallup poll from this past summer, 69% of Ukrainians favored “a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible,” whereas 24% say they “support continuing to fight until victory.” This is a significant shift from 2022, when 73% supported fighting until victory and 22% favored a negotiated resolution as soon as possible.
The most sensitive, unresolved issues concern demands by Ukraine for security guarantees and Russia for Kyiv to cede the remaining territory of the Donbas region under its control. Threading this needle has consumed much of the negotiators’ time and attention over the last several weeks, as ultimately both Moscow and Kyiv need to accept the terms of the agreement.
A December survey by the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology showed that 72% of Ukrainians supported freezing the current front line and providing security guarantees for Ukraine. At the same time, 75% of Ukrainians oppose a proposal to cede the remainder of Donbas to Russia without solid security guarantees.
“Russia should be legally bound to pursue a policy of non-aggression toward Ukraine and Europe, while the United States and Russia should extend their agreements on nuclear non-proliferation and arms control. Ukraine, in turn, reaffirms its status as a non-nuclear state,” says Maria.
Ukrainians’ shared fears are the risk of further escalation of the conflict and the possible unleashing of nuclear weapons. “This prospect is not abstract, it’s a real and deeply personal anxiety for our children, our land, our people, and frightening in a very concrete way—the fear of losing our loved ones, our country dear to our hearts, with its rivers, forests and fields, cities and villages,” Maria says how Ukrainian mothers’ shared common goal is preserving “Ukraine for future generations.”
According to Ivan, who lives in eastern Ukraine under Moscow’s control, the proposals concerning halting further NATO enlargement “are key, as it was the expansion of NATO to the East that became the main trigger for our conflict. Without resolving this issue, it is impossible to resolve others.”
Ivan underscores the importance of the provisions from the original agreement for “promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice.” He believes the “eliminating racism” phrase must be replaced with “eliminating hatred”, as this “more reflects the situation in the society on both sides of the front line.” He offers the metaphor that “issues of language and religion in Ukraine are abscessing boils, without careful ‘treatment’ of which it is impossible to heal the entire ‘body’ of the state.”
While acknowledging that such a sensitive issue of territorial control will be resolved at the negotiating table, Ivan’s sincere wish is for the voices of those living in territories not controlled by Kyiv to be heard. “Ask them if they want to be ‘liberated’, if they want to return to Ukraine. Most people will answer these questions with an unequivocal ‘no.’ And most of the time, there is no politics in this. People are very tired and brave. And they want peace.”
The proposal that Ukraine hold elections within 100 days of signing the peace agreement, Maria believes, is “necessary,” since trust in the current authorities “remains sensitive.” And holding elections could become “an important step toward renewing public trust.”
For Tatiana, “Ukrainian political elites see that they are being made to pay with Ukrainian lives for a compromise between major powers, yet they do not resist this process.” She offers a grim but accurate assessment of the realities facing ordinary Ukrainians, for whom “this is not true peace but rather a partial transformation into a permanent buffer zone. Still, it represents a halt to the conveyor belt of death, in which people on both sides are killed, and cities are destroyed into lunar landscapes — all for goals that are unclear to anyone and far removed from the daily lives of most Ukrainians.”
“In the end, every side speaks of peace, but means something different by it: the United States seeks a managed exit, the European Union seeks its own security, and Ukraine seeks survival and the right not to be cannon fodder in someone else’s game,” says Tatiana.
For Ivan, the involvement of “representatives of civil society from both sides and experts on specific issues” is critical in addressing the concerns of citizens.
Maxim, who fully supports the 28 points of the Peace Agreement, is deeply committed to peace on his land. He underscores his support for “not only a ceasefire, but also humanitarian issues aimed at protecting and supporting the civilian population on both sides of the conflict.”
Maria agrees with the establishing of “a humanitarian committee to address unresolved issues, including the exchange of prisoners of war and the return of detained civilians.” The underlying concern among all Ukrainians is how the war has divided families; from those living in territories not controlled by the Ukrainian government, to those relocated to western regions where there’s less shelling, and still others who have fled to neighboring countries.
“We need to reunite our families, to have physical access to our loved ones, and to see our husbands, brothers, and fathers return from the frontlines alive and unharmed. We want to focus on rebuilding cities and villages — the restoration of human ties is essential for societal healing,” Maria says.
keep readingShow less
Top photo credit: US President Donald Trump speaks during a meeting ahead of peace signing ceremony with Democratic Republic of the Congo Foreign Minister Therese Kayikwamba Wagner (R) and Rwandan Foreign Minister Olivier Nduhungirehe (2nd-L) in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, USA on June 27, 2025. (Reuters)
On a roll: Trump to host 5 African leaders this week
President Trump’s policy towards the African continent in 2025 was loaded with personal disagreements, peace negotiations, and efforts to improve economic exchange.
Through the ups and downs of Trump’s Africa policy, it became increasingly clear as the year wore on that contrary to observers’ early expectations, Trump’s team is indeed prioritizing Africa.
Here’s a review of the top five stories that defined Trump’s policy towards Africa in 2025.
Diplomatic Scuffle with South Africa
The president’s term began with a proverbial shot across the bow. Just days into his administration, the president accused the South African government of failing to halt a genocide he claimed was being perpetrated by the country’s native black population against white farmers part of the Afrikaner ethnic group.
He then signed an executive order on February 7, accusing Pretoria of expropriating the land of white South Africans without fair compensation, and giving that land to the country’s black population. Trump ordered the U.S. to “not provide any aid or assistance to South Africa,” and also to “promote the resettlement of Afrikaner refugees escaping government-sponsored race-based discrimination, including racially discriminatory property confiscation.”
The rift culminated in an extraordinary argument in the Oval Office on May 21 between South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and Trump. During the encounter, Trump continued his attacks on the South African government with his counterpart sitting beside him.
At one point, Trump ordered the lights to be dimmed and drew attention to a television screen, which played clips of leaders from a South African minority political party calling for attacks against the country’s white population. Trump then held up printed copies of news articles he claimed discussed the death of white South Africans.
The relationship never mended. Under Trump’s demand, the United States government boycotted the Group of 20 (G20) summit in late November hosted by South Africa in Johannesburg, and disinvited South Africa from next year’s G20 summit, which is to be hosted by the United States in south Florida.
Massad Boulos' role as Senior Africa Advisor
Among the early signs that Trump would prioritize Africa as part of his administration’s broader foreign policy came on April 1, when Massad Boulos was announced as Trump’s Senior Advisor for Africa.
Although Boulos, the father-in-law to Trump’s daughter Tiffany, had no previous experience in diplomatic affairs on the continent, he has a close relationship with the Trump family, and has proven himself to be the president’s right-hand man on Africa policy.
Without Boulos, Trump’s policy towards the continent would have likely been muddled in layers of State Department bureaucracy.
Peace agreement between the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Rwanda
President Trump has spoken extensively over the course of his second term of his desire to be seen as a peacemaker who ends lengthy international conflicts. In Africa, this desire has manifested itself most fully in the administration’s effort to end the decades-long war between the DRC and Rwanda. Boulos’ first task as senior advisor was to work with the Qataris to mediate a permanent ceasefire in the war between the DRC and Rwanda.
Among the major reasons the Trump administration spotlighted this conflict as its first peace initiative on the continent was a desire to tap into the region’s vast mineral wealth. The DRC and surrounding countries are home to some of the world’s largest reserves of critical minerals, important for a vast number of technologies used in products such as electric vehicles, smartphones, and batteries.
The conflict between the DRC and Rwanda is complicated by the mix of rebel groups involved. M23 is the primary Rwanda-supported rebel force opposing the DRC and its many militias, known collectively as the Wazalendo. The governments of the DRC and Rwanda have themselves been fiercely antagonistic to one another, making a lasting peace deal all the less likely to take root.
Yet, to the administration’s credit, it achieved a preliminary peace agreement that was signed by the foreign ministers of both countries in a ceremony overseen by President Trump in the Oval Office on June 27. Then, on December 4, the presidents of both countries met in Washington in a very rare face-to-face encounter to sign the second phase of the agreement, which included American access to mineral wealth.
Although fighting has continued sporadically since June’s peace agreement, Trump’s emphasis on ending the conflict has at the very least created a framework for what a lasting peace could look like.
Effort to end the war in Sudan
Boulos has also been leading the president’s effort to secure peace in the intractable civil war in Sudan between the country’s Sudanese Armed Force (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
Boulos, who said Sudan would become his top priority after the DRC-Rwanda deal was signed in June, has joined forces with counterparts in the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — known collectively as the Quad — to try to negotiate an end to the war.
But the Quad has failed to substantially move the peace process forward. Just one day after the group met for negotiations in Washington in late October, the RSF succeeded in their 18-month siege of El-Fasher, overrunningSAF forces to take over the capital of North Darfur province. El-Fasher’s fall has solidified the geographic splitting of the country, with the RSF controlling the southwest and the SAF ruling much of the rest of Sudan.
And yet, Trump’s team continues its effort to resolve the conflict. In mid-December, Boulos met with SAF leader Abdel Fattah al-Burhan in Riyadh as part of mediation discussions. The effort to end this war will likely be among the administration’s top priorities for Africa in 2026.
Economic engagement with Africa
Beyond the efforts to end wars on the continent, Trump has also set his sights on advancing American economic engagement with Africa. As part of this, the U.S. government promoted the U.S.-Africa Business Summit in late June in Luanda, Angola. The event secured a record $2.5 billion in business deals between American and African partners in a range of industries, including digital infrastructure, cybersecurity, energy, and hospitality.
This event followed through on the State Department’s launch of a commercial diplomacy strategy for the continent in May. In a speech launching the strategy, Senior Africa Bureau Official Troy Fitrell said that Africa “is the world’s largest untapped market,” and that officials in this administration “no longer see Africa as a continent in need of handouts, but as a capable commercial partner.”
In line with the desire to increase America’s economic connectivity to the continent, the administration has continued investing in the construction of the Lobito Corridor, a collection of rail and feeder roads connecting inland mining sites and cities to the Lobito Port on Angola’s Atlantic coast, from where finished and unfinished goods can access the world. On December 17, the administration announced a $553 million loan through the Development Finance Corporation to support the corridor’s construction.
Trump has also signaled support for the extension of the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), a preferential trade deal that lapsed this past September. The agreement provides duty-free access to over 1,800 goods from Africa to the United States, increasing the accessibility of the American market to African sellers who would otherwise struggle to compete with the low price of goods coming from other regions.
But, in typical Trump fashion, his AGOA support suffers from a contradiction. The sweeping global tariffs that he implemented in an effort to force what he considers to be improved trade relations with the United States included a 15% tariff rate on 13 AGOA-eligible countries, as well as a 30% tariff for AGOA-eligible South Africa, effectively eliminating AGOA benefits for these countries.
The U.S. bombs Nigeria
On Christmas, the United States launched an airstrike that killed members of the Islamic State in northwest Nigeria. In a post on his Truth Social account, the president said these terrorists "have been targeting and viciously killing, primarily, innocent Christians." In an interview on local television after the attack, Nigeria's Foreign Minister Yussuf Tuggar said that his country's government had coordinated with the United States on the attacks, which had been planned for weeks.
This strike comes after the American president had ordered Nigeria to be placed on a "watch list" in late October for violence the president claims has been committed by non-Christian armed groups against the country's Christian population. In an October 31 post on Truth Social, Trump said, "Christianity is facing an existential threat in Nigeria. Thousands of Christians are being killed. Radical Islamists are responsible for this mass slaughter. I am hereby making Nigeria a ‘COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN’.” Days after the post, Nigerian government leaders denied Trump's claim that armed groups in the country target people because of their religious affiliation.
keep readingShow less
Top image credit: ChameleonsEye, noamgalai, AI Teich via shutterstock.com
Earlier this month, Republican Congressman Thomas Massie mocked the idea of a potential U.S. regime change war with Venezuela, ostensibly over drug trafficking.
"Do we truly believe that Nicholas Maduro will be replaced by a modern-day George Washington? How did that work out? In Cuba, Libya, Iraq, or Syria?"
"Previous presidents told us to go to war over WMDs, weapons of mass destruction, that did not exist,” he added, taking a direct dig at President George W. Bush. Now it's the same playbook, except we're told that drugs are the WMDs."
In 2016 Trump ran for president as the anti-Bush, slamming the Iraq War justifications on the Republican primary debate stage. “Obviously, the war in Iraq was a big, fat mistake, all right? They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction. There were none, and they knew there were none,” Trump said then.
Now Team Trump talks about fentanyl being a WMD and teases war. Massie had a point in comparing Trump to Bush and Dick Cheney in more ways than one.
Even though Trump once accused the second Bush administration of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the president is now whipping out the same canard to justify U.S. military actions against Venezuela, which his administration has carried out to great controversy.
Signing an executive order in December that classifies fentanyl as a WMD, Trump said, “No bomb does what this is doing,” noting the significant number of overdose deaths caused by the synthetic opioid in the United States.”
“So we’re formally classifying fentanyl as a weapon of mass destruction,” the president declared.
Never mind the fact that Venezuela is not the primary source of fentanyl. In fact, the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) has said “Mexico and China are the primary source countries for fentanyl and fentanyl-related substances trafficked directly into the United States,” while “India is emerging as a source for finished fentanyl powder and fentanyl precursor chemicals.”
“The simple fact is we are headed to a regime change efforts in Venezuela based entirely on a false pretense (flimsier than WMD),” wrote Breaking Points podcast host Saagar Enjeti, comparing the situation to the lead-up to the Iraq War..
“Speaking of wars being over, how about the folks in the admin doing a bad remake of Iraq? Cause that went so well,” Republican Senator Rand Paul shared on X, just before Christmas. adding, “They even brought out the greatest hits, like seizing oil and ‘weapons of mass destruction.’”
The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart — who spent much of his early career deriding Bush and Cheney and the war — was floored that Trump would deploy this line of reasoning, saying in a recent monologue, “You guys have the balls to tell us that the pretext for Iraq was bullshit, and that war was a mistake, and we’re not like that, and also Venezuela has weapons of mass destruction and we have to stop them?”
2. 'Narco-Terrorists’
During the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, many Republicans in the Bush-Cheney era insisted the U.S. was fighting not mere “terrorists” but “Islamofascists.” President Bush himself used the phrase “Islamic fascists.”
It was a label intended to make America’s enemies more evil and ubiquitous, numbering beyond even the al-Qaida terrorists who caused 9/11, which meant the war could be as far reaching as the Bush administration wanted.
Similarly, the Trump administration doesn’t just wage war on run-of-the-mill drug traffickers these days, it now targets “narco-terrorists” — raising the specter of 9/11 — and says the traffickers are selling drugs to wage war on the United States. Writer Martin DiCaro explained the greater significance of this after American forces reportedly killed two survivors of a U.S. boat strike:
“The term ‘narco-terrorist’ is meant to dehumanize and desensitize. Their conduct — murder, terrorism, and poisoning Americans’ bodies — morally disqualifies them and, therefore, justifies extraordinary punishment. The possibility that harmless fishermen are blown to pieces must not weaken our leaders’ resolve to defend the nation.”
Di Caro added, “The boat strikes may be illegal and appalling, but the Trump administration’s conduct follows a long historical pattern, where America’s enemies operate outside the acceptable boundaries of civilization, and Washington's heavy-handed response can be justified by notions of national security, economic interests, racial superiority, or basic human decency — or all four simultaneously.”
Democratic Congressman Ro Khanna pleaded with the defense secretary and vice president, both Iraq War veterans, in November. “(Pete Hegseth) and (JD Vance) you were sent to fight a war that was based on a lie.”
“Now you are asking Americans to trust intelligence for a war in Venezuela,” he added. “What happened to you?”
3. Using ‘war on terror’ standards
Much of how the Trump administration conducts itself is reminiscent of Bush-Cheney, the Patriot Act, and the national security state after 9/11.
As Elizabeth Beavers observed in Responsible Statecraft in November:
“The original decision to treat the 9/11 attacks not as crime but as warfare, and to launch a literal ‘war on terror’ in response, remains the primary post-9/11 legal innovation on which so many abuses are made possible. Under this global war paradigm, the Obama administration carried out ruthless drone killings, including one that targeted a U.S. citizen, and justified the strikes with a mish-mash of legal standards that applied rules of war outside of actual war zones, and expansively interpreted what constitutes an’“imminent threat’ and resulting ‘self-defense’ powers.
“Every post-9/11 president has claimed wide authority to use military force so long as it serves a vague ‘national interest,’” Beavers added. “We can see echoes of this in the Trump administration’s insistence that the small Venezuelan boat blown up by the U.S. military posed an ‘immediate threat to the United States,’ that the strike complied with the laws of war, and was ‘in defense of vital U.S. national interests.”
Sen. Rand Paul chided the administration in October, “When you kill someone, you should know, if you’re not at war, not in a declared war, you really need to know someone’s name at least,” Paul said. “You have to accuse them of something. You have to present evidence. So all of these people have been blown up without us knowing their name, without any evidence of a crime.”
4. Bombing Iran
One foreign policy action taken by the Trump administration in 2025 might have even out-Bushed, Bush: A military strike on Iran.
Former Trump adviser John Bolton as well as the many neoconservatives and their friends who once staffed the Bush administration have been aching for direct U.S. military action against Iran for a long time. The late John McCain even once famously made that wish into a song.
“I’ve never been, and don’t intend ever to be, a supporter of Donald Trump. But I wish the president and his administration well in this crisis,” wrote Never Trumper hothead and top Bush-era neocon Bill Kristol on June 13
What Trump didn’t do, thankfully, is pursue a regime change war in Iran which is what hawks have long desired most. As Congressman Khanna said in July, “The reality is, people want regime change in Iran, and they are egging this president on to bomb. I hope cooler heads will prevail.”
In May, President Trump had blasted “interventionalists” and “neocons” during a major speech in Saudi Arabia. But after the Iran strike, The New Statesmen’s Freddy Hayward asked if Trump was instead indeed “the last neoconservative.”
“Like Bush, Trump may become a president who was elected to fix America but ends up ordering troops to the Middle East,” he wrote. “This war has become a test of whether the neoconservative age is over.”
***
Some of Trump’s top staff postings played right into the hands of the old Cold War warrior and neoconservative guard, which had generally made up the Bush-Cheney national security establishment in the early 2000s. Some of the president’s more radical ideas, like rebuilding Gaza, uncannily hew to proposals that neoconservatives like Elliott Abrams had put forward for the post-war territory.
Unfortunately, these are not the only examples of this “America First” president sounding more like “Mission Accomplished” in 2025.
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.
