Trump promised to be a ‘peacemaker' president. He launched nearly as many airstrikes in five months as Biden did in four years
'Our power will stop all wars and bring a new spirit of unity to a world that has been angry, violent and totally unpredictable,' the president said in his remarks on January 20.
But six months later, Trump has already launched nearly as many airstrikes on foreign nations as Joe Biden did within four years, with analysts asking whether the president's plan to end so-called 'forever wars' involves overwhelming firepower to stop them from happening in the first place.
Since Trump returned to the White House, the United States has carried out at least 529 bombings in more than 240 locations in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia, according to Armed Conflict Location & Event Data (ACLED), an international data collection nonprofit. His predecessor's administration launched 555.
'Trump's preference for engagement begs the question: Does this contradict his promise to end America's wars — or are the foreign strikes how he wishes to keep that promise?' ACLED president Clionadh Raleigh said in a statement. 'The recent airstrikes on Iran's nuclear sites have been framed as a major turning point in U.S. foreign policy. But if you take a step back, they don't stand out — they fit.'
Donald Trump's administration has carried out more than 500 bombings since taking office in January (REUTERS)
'All of President Trump's decisive actions have been overwhelmingly popular and resulted in greater peace,' White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to The Independent.
'Operation Midnight Hammer successfully obliterated Iran's nuclear capabilities, and [the Department of Defense's] successful strikes against ISIS and other malign groups killed terrorists want to do harm to Americans,' she added.
'Anyone who sympathizes with evil terrorists and wants them to live should look inward,' she said.
A majority of the U.S. military's airstrikes thus far have targeted Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen in an effort to stop their attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea launched in retaliation for Israel's war in Gaza.
The administration struck Yemen at least 474 times within three months, ACLED found. The Biden administration launched 294 attacks in Yemen within roughly 12 months.
Trump's airstrikes in Yemen have reportedly killed as many civilians within the eight-week bombing campaign as in the previous two decades of U.S. attacks targeting militants in the country, according to nonprofit watchdog Airwars. At least 224 civilians were killed during the campaign between March and May, compared to 258 deaths between 2002 and 2024, that report found.
The administration also launched 44 airstrikes in Somalia to target Islamic State operatives, according to ACLED.
Trump first ordered the airstrikes in February, marking the first attacks in the African nation in his second term.
'The U.S. military is moving faster, hitting harder, and doing so with fewer constraints,' according to Raleigh. 'Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now Iran are all familiar terrain, but this isn't about geography — it's about frequency.'
Targeted airstrikes don't appear to be a last-resort measure under the Trump administration but 'the first move,' Raleigh added.
'While Trump has repeatedly promised to end America's 'forever wars,' he has rarely elaborated on how,' Raleigh said. 'These early months suggest the plan may be to use overwhelming firepower to end fights before they begin, or before they drag on.'
Throughout his campaign, the president accused Biden and, later, his Democratic rival Kamala Harris of leading the United States into World War III. 'These are wars that will never end with him,' Trump said of Biden during a presidential debate in June 2024. 'We're closer to World War III than anybody can imagine.'
A majority of the U.S. military's airstrikes thus far have targeted Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen (pictured) in an effort to stop attacks on merchant ships in the Red Sea launched in retaliation for Israel's war in Gaza (Houthi Media Center via Getty Images)
Receiving the endorsement of now-intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard last year, Trump said the pair was 'uniting forces to end the endless foreign wars.'
'I am confident that his first task will be to do the work to walk us back from the brink of war,' Gabbard said at the time. 'We cannot be prosperous unless we are at peace.'
Trump — vocal about his desire for a Nobel Peace Prize, and nominated for the honor by at least four of his allies — also promised his administration would bring an end to Russia's war in Ukraine and Israel's war in Gaza.
On Monday, the president laid out prospective steps to pressure Russia to end its war, including sending more weapons to Ukraine and threatening economic sanctions in Moscow if there is no peace agreement within 50 days.
'I felt we had a deal about four times,' Trump said. 'But it just kept going on and on.'
His administration has also failed to broker a ceasefire in Gaza as Palestinians face threats of famine and Israeli airstrikes continue to bombard the strip. A tentative Trump-backed plan to force hundreds of thousands of Palestinian civilians into an area controlled by Israel's military close to the Gaza-Egypt border has also threatened to derail ceasefire talks.
The Independent has requested comment Department of Defense.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
News Analysis: Trump's 'force of personality' hasn't delivered on key foreign policy goals
When President Trump returned to the White House in January, he promised to deliver big foreign policy wins in record time. He said he would halt Russia's war against Ukraine in 24 hours or less, end Israel's war in Gaza nearly as quickly and force Iran to end to its nuclear program. He said he'd persuade Canada to become the 51st state, take Greenland from Denmark and negotiate 90 trade deals in 90 days. 'The president believes that his force of personality … can bend people to do things," his special envoy-for-everything, Steve Witkoff, explained in May in a Breitbart interview. Six months later, none of those ambitious goals have been reached. Ukraine and Gaza are still at war. Israel and the United States bombed Iran's nuclear facilities, but it's not clear whether they ended the country's atomic program once and for all. Canada and Denmark haven't surrendered any territory. And instead of trade deals, Trump is mostly slapping tariffs on other countries, to the distress of U.S. stock markets. It turned out that force of personality couldn't solve every problem. 'He overestimated his power and underestimated the ability of others to push back,' said Kori Schake, director of foreign policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. 'He often acts as if we're the only people with leverage, strength or the ability to take action. We're not.' Read more: Inside Trump's ICE expansion: Can he really hire 10,000 new agents? The president has notched important achievements. He won a commitment from other members of NATO to increase their defense spending to 5% of gross domestic product. The attack on Iran appears to have set Tehran's nuclear project back for years, even if it didn't end it. And Trump — or more precisely, his aides — helped broker ceasefires between India and Pakistan and between Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo. But none of those measured up to the goals Trump initially set for himself — much less qualified for the Nobel Peace Prize he has publicly yearned for. 'I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this,' he grumbled when the Rwanda-Congo agreement was signed. The most striking example of unfulfilled expectations has come in Ukraine, the grinding conflict Trump claimed he could end even before his inauguration. For months, Trump sounded certain that his warm relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin would produce a deal that would stop the fighting, award Russia most of the territory its troops have seized and end U.S. economic sanctions on Moscow. 'I believe he wants peace,' Trump said of Putin in February. 'I trust him on this subject.' But to Trump's surprise, Putin wasn't satisfied with his proposal. The Russian leader continued bombing Ukrainian cities even after Trump publicly implored him to halt via social media ('Vladimir, STOP!'). Critics charged that Putin was playing Trump for a fool. The president bristled: "Nobody's playing me." But as early as April, he admitted to doubts about Putin's good faith. 'It makes me think that maybe he doesn't want to stop the war, he's just tapping me along," he said. 'I speak to him a lot about getting this thing done, and I always hang up and say, 'Well, that was a nice phone call,' and then missiles are launched into Kyiv or some other city,' Trump complained last week. 'After that happens three or four times, you say the talk doesn't mean anything." The president also came under pressure from Republican hawks in Congress who warned privately that if Ukraine collapsed, Trump would be blamed the way his predecessor, President Biden, was blamed for the fall of Afghanistan in 2022. So last week, Trump changed course and announced that he will resume supplying U.S.-made missiles to Ukraine — but by selling them to European countries instead of giving them to Kyiv as Biden had. Trump also gave Putin 50 days to accept a ceasefire and threatened to impose 'secondary tariffs' on countries that buy oil from Russia if he does not comply. He said he still hopes Putin will come around. 'I'm not done with him, but I'm disappointed in him,' he said in a BBC interview. It still isn't clear how many missiles Ukraine will get and whether they will include long-range weapons that can strike targets deep inside Russia. A White House official said those details are still being worked out. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sounded unimpressed by the U.S. actions. 'I have no doubt that we will cope,' he said. Foreign policy experts warned that the secondary tariffs Trump proposed could prove impractical. Russia's two biggest oil customers are China and India; Trump is trying to negotiate major trade agreements with both. Meanwhile, Trump has dispatched Witkoff back to the Middle East to try to arrange a ceasefire in Gaza and reopen nuclear talks with Iran — the goals he began with six months ago. Despite his mercurial style, Trump's approach to all these foreign crises reflects basic premises that have remained constant for a decade, foreign policy experts said. 'There is a Trump Doctrine, and it has three basic principles,' Schake said. 'Alliances are a burden. Trade exports American jobs. Immigrants steal American jobs.' Robert Kagan, a former Republican aide now at the Brookings Institution, added one more guiding principle: 'He favors autocrats over democrats.' Trump has a soft spot for foreign strongmen like Putin and China's Xi Jinping, and has abandoned the long-standing U.S. policy of fostering democracy abroad, Kagan noted. Read more: Trump threatens Russia with tariffs and boosts U.S. weapons for Ukraine The problem, Schake said, is that those principles 'impede Trump's ability to get things done around the world, and he doesn't seem to realize it. 'The international order we built after World War II made American power stronger and more effective,' she said. 'Trump and his administration seem bent on presiding over the destruction of that international order.' Moreover, Kagan argued, Trump's frenetic imposition of punitive tariffs on other countries comes with serious costs. 'Tariffs are a form of economic warfare,' he said. 'Trump is creating enemies for the United States all over the world. ... I don't think you can have a successful foreign policy if everyone in the world mistrusts you.' Not surprisingly, Trump and his aides don't agree. 'It cannot be overstated how successful the first six months of this administration have been,' White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said last week. 'With President Trump as commander in chief, the world is a much safer place.' That claim will take years to test. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Chicago Tribune
24 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Robert A. Pape: To prevent nuclear war in the Middle East, America needs to change its nuclear doctrine
The world is moving closer to the brink of nuclear war in alarming ways that are more dangerous and harder to anticipate than during the Cold War. The famous 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis was a harrowing near miss, but today's nuclear dangers are more complex. This is due to a variety of factors, particularly coming together in the Middle East: increasing tensions across the region, growing risks of nuclear proliferation, and now perils of surprise military attack during crises involving states with nuclear weapons or on the cusp of nuclear weapons. Israel's recent 12-day war against Iran is a harbinger of potentially growing nuclear dangers to come. For the first time in history, two nuclear armed states — Israel and the United States — bombed a state, Iran, with a major nuclear program that many believe is on the threshold of acquiring all the physical and technical capacities necessary to produce nuclear weapons within a matter of months. For sure, the 12-day war involved a series of attacks and counterattacks that were terrifying to live through, and there was great relief when they came to an end. However, the future is even more concerning. First, Israeli and American bombing did not obliterate Iran's nuclear program, as President Donald Trump astonishingly declared before he received bomb damage assessments. As is now widely agreed among U.S. defense intelligence, Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan did not eliminate Iran's stockpiles of highly enriched uranium. Although uncertainly remains about Iran's next steps, there is little doubt that Iran could attempt to produce a 'crude' bomb in a matter of months. And it is important to understand, a 'crude' bomb means a Hiroshima-style weapon that could lead to the deaths of 80,000 people from the immediate effects of the blast. Second, future information about Iran's nuclear program is fraught with high degrees of uncertainty. From the beginning, Iran has allowed IAEA inspectors to have tremendous access to monitor its nuclear enrichment program. True, these inspections have fluctuated over time and have never been as fully comprehensive as many would have liked. However, for decades, the quarterly IAEA reports have been crucial for high confidence assessments about the scale of Iran's enrichment program and whether vast amounts of enriched uranium have not been siphoned off to develop nuclear weapons. Now, Iran has reportedly banned IAEA inspectors from its nuclear facilities, and the fear and suspicion about a surprise nuclear breakout will grow over time. Third, and most important, the 12-day war shows that the fear of surprise attack is now fully justified. It is important to recall that the war started June 13 with a stunning, Pearl Harbor-like surprise attack by Israel on Iran's nuclear sites. Israel's bolt-from-the-blue strike occurred without warning and while Iranian negotiators were preparing to meet with their American counterparts just days later. Given these events, Israel, the United States and Iran now face the specter of one of the most terrifying scenarios for nuclear war: the 'reciprocal fear of surprise attack.' That's a situation in which both sides of a potential conflict fear being attacked first, leading them to consider — and possibly launch — a preemptive strike to avoid being caught off guard. The most worrisome aspect is that striking first in these circumstances has an element of rationality. If one side thinks the other is preparing for a surprise attack, then attacking first, even if it carries risks, may be the best way to reduce one's own losses. Of course, nuclear war is so horrible that the reciprocal fear of surprise attack may never lead to an actual outbreak of war. If so, then the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would not be a problem in the first place. Alas, we need to take this danger seriously. What can be done? Although there are no perfect solutions to the reciprocal fear of surprise attack, there is one step that would significantly matter: For the United States, Iran and Israel to declare that they would never be the first to use nuclear weapons in a crisis involving Iran. The general idea of 'no first use' pledges, as they are called, arose during the Cold War, but the United States has never been willing to make such a promise. At the time, this was thought of in the context of the U.S., Europe and Soviet contest in which America needed the implicit threat of the first use of nuclear weapons to offset the Soviet conventional military threat to U.S. nonnuclear European allies. The Middle East is clearly different. America's main ally, Israel, is a powerful nuclear weapons state and so does not rely on U.S. nuclear weapons to deter attacks on its homeland. For the United States, Israel and Iran to agree a limited no-first-use policy would not end the tensions over Iran's nuclear program. However, it would energize negotiations and avoid some of the worst ways that a nuclear war could inadvertently occur. The Nobel Laureate Assembly to Prevent Nuclear War taking place at the University of Chicago recently was a perfect place to begin a national conversation about the value of adapting U.S. nuclear doctrine to today's realities in the Middle East. If this assembly of the most brilliant minds on the planet could recommend this historic step in which the U.S., Iran and Israel each pledge they would not be the first to use nuclear weapons in the dispute involving Iran's nuclear program, this would be a meaningful step toward preventing nuclear war in one of the most dangerous regions in the world.
Washington Post
25 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Trump survived many scandals, but the Epstein story poses a new test
Nearly two weeks after President Donald Trump and his administration announced they had nothing more to say about Jeffrey Epstein's criminal case, the topic continues to dog him, presenting a potential new political liability at the six-month mark of his presidency as Trump tries to sell more Americans on his accomplishments.
