Peace in Our Timeline? How Donald Trump keeps declaring ceasefires — and craving credit
One of life's crueler ironies is that legacies often hinge on a single moment. Take the Chamberlain family. Sir Austen Chamberlain won the
Nobel Peace Prize
for brokering the Locarno Treaties—an ambitious attempt to prevent war between France and Germany.
But thanks to his half-brother, Neville Chamberlain, the family name is now synonymous with diplomatic delusions about peace.
'Peace for our time,' Neville declared after the Munich Agreement—five syllables that have since become a meme, a punchline, and the unofficial slogan of appeasement. Speaking of memes, Donald Trump has practically turned American diplomacy into one. Nowhere is this clearer than in his habit of announcing ceasefires that collapse before his posts finish loading.
On June 21, in a characteristic stream-of-consciousness post on Truth Social, he delivered this extraordinary self-eulogy:
Because in Trump's world, peace isn't negotiated—it's declared. Ceasefires aren't forged in backrooms or brokered by diplomats. They're conjured onTruth Social and announced as if the world runs on vibes. It's not diplomacy. It's delusion dressed in digital drag.
Here are Trump's most infamous 'ceasefires'—each more imaginary than the last, each vanishing faster than you can say 'Nobel.'
Russia–Ukraine
Claim:
On May 19, 2025, Trump said he had orchestrated 'immediate' negotiations between Russia and Ukraine after speaking to Vladimir Putin.
Reality: Moscow issued a lukewarm statement, Ukraine ignored it altogether, and the war raged on. No ceasefire, no talks, no traction. Peace never left Mar-a-Lago.
India–Pakistan
Claim:
In May 2025, Trump took credit for defusing border tensions between India and Pakistan, declaring, 'I stopped a war.'
Reality:
The Indian Ministry of External Affairs dismissed his claims, making it clear that any easing came from direct military dialogue between the two nations. Of course, Pakistan always one to jump the gun, nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, a day before he attacked strikes on Iran .
Israel–Iran: 'Complete and Total Ceasefire'
Claim:
On June 23, 2025, after US stealth bombers struck Iranian nuclear sites, Trump declared a 'complete and total ceasefire now in effect.'
Reality:
Hours later, Iranian missiles hit Israeli cities. Israel retaliated with fresh airstrikes. Officials in both countries denied any ceasefire. The only 'complete and total' thing was the fiction.
Peace in Our Timeline? How Donald Trump Keeps Declaring Ceasefires—and Craving Credit
In Trump's parallel universe, diplomacy isn't measured in treaties signed or wars ended—it's measured in character count. A ceasefire is not a negotiation. It's a narrative. A press release without process. A fantasy broadcast to followers who already believe.
And in that sense, Trump has achieved something remarkable: a new form of foreign policy, where facts are optional, fiction is aspirational, and the Nobel Peace Prize is just another grievance to monologue about on the internet. Peace in Our Time? Only on Truth Social. Or to be more accurate: Truth Optional.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
8 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Iran launched missiles at Israel minutes before ceasefire, says report
Jun 24, 2025 06:58 PM IST Iran's last wave of missiles against Israel was carried out minutes before a ceasefire implementation in response to deadly Israeli strikes, the Revolutionary Guards said on Tuesday in a statement reported by the semi-official Tasnim news agency. The statement said 14 missiles were launched against military centres across Israel.(AFP) The statement said 14 missiles were launched against military centres across Israel, adding that Iranian armed forces will continue to monitor "enemy movements with open and vigilant eyes", Tasnim reported.
Economic Times
10 minutes ago
- Economic Times
US Federal Reserve to take longer to cut interest rates, says Jerome Powell
The Federal Reserve will continue to wait and see how the economy evolves before deciding whether to reduce its key interest rate, Chair Jerome Powell said on Tuesday, a stance directly at odds with President Donald Trump's calls for immediate cuts. ADVERTISEMENT "For the time being, we are well positioned to wait to learn more about the likely course of the economy before considering any adjustments to our policy stance," Powell said in prepared remarks he will deliver early Tuesday before the House Financial Services Committee. Powell is facing two days of what could be tough grilling on Capitol Hill, as Trump has repeatedly urged the Fed to reduce borrowing costs. Powell has often received a positive reception before House and Senate committees that oversee the Fed, or at least muted criticism. Powell has also often cited his support in Congress as a bulwark against Trump's attacks, but that support could wane under the president's ongoing lashed out again in the early hours of Tuesday morning, posting on his social media site: "I hope Congress really works this very dumb, hardheaded person, over. We will be paying for his incompetence for many years to come." The last time Powell appeared before Congress, in February, Rep. French Hill, the Arkansas Republican who chairs the committee, urged Powell to ensure inflation returned to the Fed's target of 2 per cent, which typically requires keeping rates elevated. ADVERTISEMENT The Fed's 19-member interest rate setting committee, led by the chair, decides whether to cut or raise borrowing costs. They typically increase rates to cool the economy to fight or prevent inflation, and lower rates when the economy is weak to boost borrowing and Fed's committee voted unanimously last week to keep its key rate unchanged, though the Fed also released forecasts of future rate cuts that revealed emerging divisions among the policymakers. Seven projected no rate cuts at all this year, two just one, while 10 forecast at least two reductions. ADVERTISEMENT At a news conference last week, Powell suggested the Fed would monitor how the economy evolves over the summer in response to Trump's tariffs and other policies before deciding whether to cut rates. His comments suggested a rate reduction wouldn't occur until September. Yet two high-profile members of the Fed's governing board, Michelle Bowman and Christopher Waller, have since suggested the central bank could cut its rate as early as its next meeting in July. Both officials were appointed by Trump during his first term and Waller is often mentioned as a potential replacement for Powell when his term ends next May. ADVERTISEMENT The Fed cut rates three times late last year to about 4.3 per cent. Yet since then it has put rate cuts on pause out of concern that Trump's tariffs could push up inflation. The president has slapped a 10 per cent duty on all imports, along with an additional 30 per cent levy on goods from China, 50 per cent on steel and aluminum, and 25 per cent on autos. ADVERTISEMENT Yet inflation has steadily cooled this year despite widespread concerns among economists about the impact of tariffs. The consumer price index ticked up just 0.1 per cent from April to May, the government said last week, a sign that price pressures are muted. Prices for some goods rose last month, but the cost for many services such as air fares and hotels fell, offsetting any tariff impact. Compared with a year ago, prices rose 2.4 per cent in May, up from 2.3 per cent in April.
Indian Express
12 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Finally, an off-ramp. But will the Iran-Israel ceasefire last?
Written by Rajeev Agarwal A week is a long time in geopolitics and in West Asia, one night can be long enough. Overnight, the region oscillated between the threat of an all-out conflict as Iran fired missiles at a US military base in Qatar, to a sudden sense of hope and peace when Donald Trump announced on his social media handle late in the evening on June 23 that a ceasefire has been agreed upon between Israel and Iran. However, for this ceasefire to happen, a face saving and an acceptable 'off ramp' was required for all the three parties in the conflict, that is, the US, Israel and Iran. While the US claimed that the B-2 bombers delivering the deep penetration GBU-57 bombs had inflicted massive damage to the Fordow nuclear enrichment site in Iran, Israel claimed victory by pushing back Iran's nuclear program sufficiently with strikes on its nuclear facilities at Natanz, Isfahan and Arak. This, combined with the targeted assassination of top military leadership in Iran and many key nuclear scientists, gave them a perfect 'off ramp'. Perhaps, the most difficult part was that for Iran. Aerial and missile strikes from Israel for over 10 days, huge losses to its air force and air defence, many missile launchers and depots destroyed, oil depots burnt, key military leadership eliminated and most importantly, the US strikes on Fordow, all this made it very difficult for Iran to agree to a ceasefire. However, with the well-orchestrated strikes on the Al Udeid Base of the US military in Qatar on June 23, combined with one last salvo of missiles into Israel in the early hours of June 24, gave something that Iran could sell as a victory back home. Also, Iran had consistently stated that the war was initiated by Israel and that it would cease firing if Israel does. Plus, on most accounts, the US strikes do not seem to have harmed the Fordow site in a way that was hoped by Israel and the US, giving Iran another brownie point. Now that the ceasefire has been achieved, there are many questions to be answered. The biggest one is whether the ceasefire will hold. In the explosive and fragile politico-military situation that exists between Israel and Iran, nothing can be said for sure and the smallest of the triggers can unleash a fresh wave of strikes. It is unlikely that Iran would initiate any fresh strikes given the weak military position it finds itself in, but when it comes to Israel and Benjamin Netanyahu, one can never be sure. He can manufacture any reason to strike, even if his own intelligence agencies don't stand by the threat projections. The second big question is tied to the reason for the commencement of the current conflict, the rapidly developing threat of Iran developing nuclear weapons. The key military objective emerging from it was the complete destruction of Iran's nuclear capability. Despite both US intelligence agencies and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) clearly stating that Iran was nowhere near developing a nuclear weapon, Israel went ahead and bombed the nuclear sites and other infrastructure in Iran starting June 13. It appears that Israel inflicted significant damage at Natanz, Isfahan and Arak putting them out of service for a long time. However, the enrichment plant at Fordow, buried 270-300 feet underground in a rocky mountainous area, was beyond its military capabilities. Having shaped the battlefield favourably and achieved complete air dominance, Israel then sought American help. The US finally obliged when the B-2 bombers delivered the payloads on June 21. Trump claimed absolute obliteration of the Fordow plant but the satellite imagery released later, tells a different story. The success of the US bombing was based on an assumption that two or more GBU-57 bombs would create a hole deep enough in the plant, at 270-300 feet, and then explode. A GBU-57 bomb can penetrate up to 200 feet of the earth, drilling a pinhole about 32 inches wide (the diameter of the bomb) before exploding and creating a crater. Thus, to achieve the desired effect, two or more bombs would have to go through the same pinhole of 32 inches to reach the depth of 300 feet, technically an (almost) impossible task. The satellite imagery clearly showed two groups of three pinhole craters, each hole separated by a few feet at least. This implies that each bomb had individually drilled a hole, probably up to a maximum depth of 200 feet and then exploded. The rocky mountainous terrain would have made the task only harder. Resultantly, whether the combined effort of six GBU-57 bombs could reach the required depth of 270-300 feet, is a big question. Satellite imagery also showed a long line of trucks departing Fordow on June 19 and 20, presumably evacuating key equipment and enriched uranium. Plus, the entry and exits to the plant were sealed, well before the bombs were dropped. Even initial reactions and assessments by the US and Israeli intelligence agencies indicated modest damage while Iran claimed that the bombs failed to achieve any effect. If Fordow has survived and the nuclear material is safe somewhere, can it be claimed that the nuclear threat from Iran has been eliminated? At best, it has been pushed back by a few years. Plus, now it gives Iran legitimate reasons to not only withdraw from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) but also weaponise its nuclear programme. The second and implied objective of the conflict was toppling of the Iranian regime. That has not happened either. In fact, the whole nation, which has been bitterly divided over regime policies, is now rallying together behind it. A fragile economy, a deeply divided society, wartime losses, the weakening of its proxies in the region (Hamas, Hezbollah), Bashar al-Assad being overthrown in Syria, the loss of key leaders and the old age of the Supreme Leader may have made the regime weak but there are no signs of regime change. Also, Ali Khamenei has reportedly nominated three clerics as his potential successors to ensure continuity of the regime. The next big question is the Gaza War. Will the Iran-Israel ceasefire lead to a ceasefire in Gaza? Will Israel end its military campaign and withdraw forces from Gaza? Where does it leave Israel's unfinished business of eliminating Hamas? And of course, what about the future course of the Palestine issue? If none of these questions are answered, the region is back to June 12, a day before Israel launched its pre-emptive strikes into Iran. The Israel-Iran conflict may have ended for now, but deep fissures in the relationship remain in place. Iran has been badly hit but its missiles striking deep into Israel have shocked Israel and the world. A fragile peace may prevail, but the nuclear weapons race may have just heated up, leading to a question of not if but when Iran will develop a bomb. Iran is like a wounded lion, retreating into the den to recuperate, planning its future kills. A wounded lion is always more dangerous than a roaring one. The writer is a West Asia expert and a Senior Research Consultant at Chintan Research Foundation, New Delhi. Views are personal
