U.S. President Donald Trump is moving as quickly as he can to establish dominance in an evolving and unstable geopolitical environment. He uses audacious moves on whole new levels to address wars in the Middle East and a trade war with China. His administration is clearly engaged in unprecedented levels of triangle diplomacy by actively urging these states to pressure Hamas. Simultaneously, they are cracking down on China’s economic practices.
Perhaps that’s because Trump’s recent diplomatic efforts laid the groundwork for a momentous Peace Summit in Sharm El-Sheikh. There, he penned the so-called “Trump Peace Agreement,” formally known as the Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity. The hard-fought peace spelled out in this agreement is a welcome relief from decades of discord and despair in the territory. Trump stated, “We, the undersigned, welcome the truly historic commitment and implementation by all parties to the Trump Peace Agreement, ending more than two years of profound suffering and loss — opening a new chapter for the region defined by hope, security, and a shared vision for peace and prosperity.”
Diplomatic Pressures and Military Threats
At the forefront of Trump’s Middle Eastern strategy is his insistence on compelling Gulf nations to exert their influence on Hamas. As the President has made clear, if you do not work to get our hostages released, we will take military action that is swift and severe. He declared, “If Hamas didn’t hand over more bodies of dead hostages, we will go in and kill them.” This declaration emphasizes the administration’s willingness to intensify its engagement in the area if required.
His approach is indicative of a larger strategy, commonly known as the “boiling frog syndrome.” This idea is a reminder that sometimes slow, incremental changes can lead to sudden, stark shifts in policy and in the balance of power. By continuing to apply pressure from friends and foes alike, Trump seeks to further assert U.S. domination on the world stage.
As well, the Trump administration has firmly resolved to rally international partners. In a recent statement, he asserted, “We’re going to be speaking with our European allies, with Australia, with Canada, with India and the Asian democracies, and we’re going to have a fulsome group response to this because bureaucrats in China cannot manage the supply chain or the manufacturing process for the rest of the world.”
Economic Tensions with China
The United States and China’s trade relationship is still highly unstable. The Trump administration has implemented export controls aimed at preventing Chinese firms from acquiring advanced microchips crucial for technological advancement. By imposing 10 percent tariffs on Australian goods despite existing free trade agreements, Trump signals a willingness to engage in aggressive economic tactics even against traditional allies.
In an additional move to heighten tensions, Trump suggested sending all Chinese exports with 100 percent tariffs. This decision has been met with both praise and ire, as it would largely upend global supply chains. U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent articulated the administration’s stance, stating that “China’s move was ‘China versus the world,’” highlighting the broader implications of these trade disputes.
Trump’s “Twenty Point Plan” provides a blueprint for the kind of strategic actions needed to address longstanding economic inequities. It would put U.S. interests front and center in trade around the world. The administration’s strategy is that by using economic tools like tariffs, the U.S. can force China to the table to agree to better trade terms.
Australia’s Position and Implications
Currently, Australia is having to chart a challenging diplomatic maze in the wake of these moves. Having recently hosted then-President Trump, Prime Minister Albanese is likely to be very interested in the implications of escalating U.S.-China tensions for Australia. Albanese has previously expressed that “Australia’s interests are best served by more trade, not by more trade barriers,” indicating a preference for constructive engagement over conflict.
Despite these diplomatic considerations, Australia’s economic ties with China make it vulnerable to potential fallout from Trump’s aggressive trade policies. The future Australian government is committed to becoming a responsible and reliable critical minerals supplier. It does this by proactively enforcing its current trade deals, which is pretty historic.
Trump’s administration seems determined to plow ahead. They have made clear their desire to work alongside allies to bring economic and security stability. In a recent address, Trump emphasized that “we will engage with our partners to make sure that we can be a very reliable supplier to meet the critical minerals needs of this country, here in the US and other markets around the world.”
