Trump's Political and Economic Interests Hinge on Continued War; What Is the Real Mission of Witkoff and Kushner?

Donald Trump claims to have ended eight wars and considers himself worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize. However, the continuing crises in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, together with the problematic and targeted roles of Witkoff and Kushner and the ambiguity over the overlap between Trump's political and economic interests and American interests, have raised serious questions about the real aims of White House diplomacy.

Donald Trump claims to end eight wars and considers himself worthy of the Nobel Peace Prize; But the continuation of the crisis in Ukraine, Gaza and Iran, along with the problematic and purposeful role of Wittkauf and Kushner and the ambiguity about the interference of Trump's political and economic interests with the interests of the United States, have raised serious questions about the real goals of White House diplomacy.

Ambassador Arjan_International Group: Donald Trump introduces himself as a president who has ended eight wars and deserves to receive the Nobel Peace Prize; But the continuation of conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran, along with the White House's reliance on negotiators outside the conventional structure of diplomacy, raises a fundamental question: Is the end of wars Trump's strategic priority, or has peace also become a tool to gain political credibility, promote personal interests, and show victory?

Donald Trump has repeatedly claimed that he has ended eight wars since returning to the White House. On October 7, 2026, he once again showed off his pacifist record by emphasizing his worthiness to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. However, an examination of the facts on the ground presents a different picture: in all the conflicts that Trump claims to resolve, the conflicts have resumed and the decisive role of Washington is disputed. In the meantime, the Ukrainian war case has not yet reached a final agreement. At the same time, the military confrontation between the US and Israel with Iran has brought a crisis to the region and global energy markets.

This gap between the claim of peace building and the reality of developments is not just a propaganda contradiction; Rather, it could be a sign of a deeper problem in the American foreign policy decision-making model: the precedence of the president's political and personal calculations over the strategic requirements of lasting peace.

peace; Strategic goal or political capital?

In the traditional model of foreign policy, the end of the war should lead to the reduction of security threats, the stabilization of regional order and the establishment of mechanisms to prevent the return of conflict. But in Trump's personalized politics, an agreement acquires more political value when it can be recorded as a historical achievement in the name of the president.

Trump's insistence on ending wars and his repeated insistence on receiving the Nobel Peace Prize show that personal credibility and record of achievement are important to his political record. The problem starts from the point where the display of success replaces the actual measurement of results; A temporary ceasefire can be presented as an end to the war, or the start of negotiations can be sold as a diplomatic victory before a lasting agreement can be reached.

In such a situation, the end of the war may not be an independent goal, but one of the options for the political management of the crisis; An option whose value depends on the amount of promotional achievement and points that can be offered within the United States.

These evidences have so far shown that Trump deliberately wants the continuation of wars and the political and economic calculations of him and his colleagues and partners are in conflict with the necessity of ending conflicts.

Witkoff and Kushner; Diplomacy in the close circle of the president

In this framework, the role of Steve Wittkauf and Jared Kushner becomes particularly important. Instead of relying exclusively on the professional structure of the State Department and conventional policy mechanisms, Trump has entrusted the responsibility of complex cases to people who have his personal trust and whose main background was in business and investment.

This choice cannot be explained simply by the use of negotiators outside the administrative structure. The question is whether such a model helps to strengthen American diplomacy or by limiting the role of specialized institutions, it makes the decision-making process more dependent on the personal will and calculations of the president.

Aaron David Miller and Daniel Kurtzer, two veteran American diplomats, in an analysis in Foreign Policy magazine in March 2026, criticized the performance of Witkoff and Kushner in the cases of Iran, Ukraine and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. They mentioned the lack of coherent strategy, weak coordination and limited diplomatic experience of these two negotiators as factors that have made it difficult to reach lasting agreements.

Therefore, the question of the real mission of these two people is not only limited to their professional competence; Rather, it should be clarified whether their mission is to resolve the root of the differences or to promote agreements that are more compatible with the political and economic priorities of Trump and these two self-interested businessmen.

Another aspect of this issue is the relationship between diplomacy and economic interests. The business activities of Trump and his relatives and the possibility of interference of public and private interests have been the subject of media and political discussions in America.

On October 12, 2026, Max Butt in the Washington Post, by examining the economic interactions related to the Ukraine-Russia negotiations, including the plan to sell the international assets of the Lukoil oil company to a group of investors, warned about the blurring of the line between public and private interests in the Trump administration's foreign policy. This analysis is especially important because some people related to the negotiations are also active in the field of investment. Such connections by themselves are considered significant reasons for the personalization of American foreign policy in processes with this level of importance.

The strategic importance of the issue is that when political and security agreements are mixed with economic opportunities, the need for transparency and institutional oversight increases. Otherwise, there is a risk that the long-term interests of the United States will be affected by the short-term political or economic calculations of individuals.

In Ukraine, the final agreement to end the war has not yet been reached. In Gaza, reaching a ceasefire or presenting a reconstruction plan alone will not solve the fundamental issues of governance, security and Palestinian rights, and deadlock remains the most accurate term to describe the current situation. In the case of Iran, the continuation of military confrontation has shown that pressure and threats, without addressing strategic differences and creating valid guarantees, will not necessarily lead to a lasting agreement.

The common feature of these cases is that sustainable peace requires the recognition of the red lines of the parties, coordination in the decision-making structure and readiness to accept mutual obligations. None of these requirements can be justified simply by Trump's personal trust in negotiators or the promise of a quick deal.

The problem is the failure of diplomacy or its definition?

Now, the main question about Trump's performance on important foreign policy cases is not how many wars he has declared finished in his speeches; Rather, it is to what extent his foreign policy has led to the creation of a stable and reliable peace?

If the agreements are more than designed for the root solution of conflicts, they become a tool to show political victory and obtain personal economic benefits, the distance between the claim of peace and the reality of wars will increase.

The mission of Witkoff and Kushner also becomes meaningful at this point: are they in charge of ending wars or in charge of managing negotiations within the framework of the political and economic calculations of the president who wants to earn money for himself and his family and register a victory in his name?

Before traveling to Moscow, Witkoff and Kushner demanded to clarify the position of Ukraine and European countries regarding the new American proposal to end the war; A trip that reports say has been postponed.

Despite initial denials by the US president, the Semaphore news site reported that the idea of ​​cutting off information sharing with Ukraine, much to Donald Trump's displeasure, is being seriously considered in the White House, although the decision still has opposition within the administration.

In his press conference at the White House, US President Donald Trump repeated his claims and rhetoric against Iran and the Strait of Hormuz, claiming that Washington will soon make a decision about Iran and that it has control over this important waterway.