The so-called Board of Peace created by the American president Donald Trump is the latest manifestation of what could be called ‘Trump Doctrine,’ in global politics. The Board and the doctrine exploit Gaza as an entry point that camouflages a sinister core. Without using Gaza’s misery as a justification, the initiative would have been nakedly exposed as it is: an attempt to undermine and circumvent the UN and international law.
Gaza and its reconstruction are merely the flimsy face and pretext, a bribe offered to the world so that states and actors accept and join the new ‘international organisation’ under Trump’s leadership.
America First
The core of 'Trump Doctrine’ rests on the principle of America First, which places the US and its interests above all others, including its closest allies. The approach leaves little room for compromise, consensus‑building, or concessions that encourage mutual interdependence or shared gains. Under this logic, the US takes what it wants, while others are left with whatever remains.
Trump’s US is prepared to act ruthlessly against any state in line with America First – the declared global strategy. No state or party is spared, including NATO allies and the EU member states.
Threats to acquire Greenland at any cost, or maybe Iceland later on, risking the trans-Atlantic alliance, have stunned the world, as culminated in Davos meeting recently. The sole exception to this rule is Israel. As many rising critics even within the ranks of MAGA itself argue that the mantra becomes Israel First.
Another part of Trump Doctrine is the expansive sphere of influence that also covers the Middle East and the South China Sea. Practically, it includes any region that Trump sees fit. In this broad outlook, the doctrine adopts offensive strategies designed to block what is seen as potential Chinese and Russian global rise. In essence, the doctrine’s real goal is prolonging America’s unipolar moment. Here, declared objectives intermingle with concealed motives, blurring the line between what is openly stated and what remains implicit.
Yet, the twin spectres of China and Russia loom large in Trump’s thinking. In the crude attempt to abduct Venezuela’s president, Nicolás Maduro, his desire to acquire Greenland, Trump once again strikes the China‑Russia chord, making clear that neither country will be allowed to establish a presence near the US or within its sphere of influence.
Lust for global wealth is yet another element of Trump Doctrine. There is an unrelenting drive to assert control over global wealth wherever possible, whether through coercive economic measures or through brute military force. This was evident in the series of tariff regimes imposed on most countries maintaining trade relations with the US, and again during Trump’s visits to the Gulf states, where he pressured them into committing massive investments to the US market.
American forces are in continuous build-up in the Gulf to either strike Iran or compel them to sign what could be close to a surrender treaty.
All of this unfolded amid blunt and unapologetic declarations that international law, the United Nations, and any global norms standing in the way of achieving Trump’s American objectives will be bypassed or disregarded. Recently and in a strike of a pen, Trump withdrew from 66 UN agreements, conventions and treaties.
Taken together, these elements produce an additional crowning feature of the Trump Doctrine: global tension and unpredictability – as in the current stand-off against Iran. In this state of orchestrated uncertainty and fear, allies and adversaries alike are thrown off balance. Political disorder spreads across the board, forcing states into defensive postures, seeking to ward off pressure by accepting new conditions or reshaping alliances. In doing so, new horizons are opened to further American influence and expansion.
The Board of War
Rhetoric and cosmetic language aside, this ‘Board of War’ appears to be the principal attempt for enforcing Trump Doctrine on a global scale. Its charter makes clear that its ambitions extend well beyond Gaza. In essence, it seeks to establish an alternative international organisation, positioned as a substitute for the UN and for what it calls “institutions that have too often failed.”
The Board attempts to repackage America’s neo-colonial project as a mission in service of global peace. Through bullying and coercion, it’s so called “member states” would be pressured into endorsing policies dictated by Washington, reframed as consensual peace initiatives. Were the US to decide, for example, to attack or invade Cuba or Iran, such aggression would be presented by the Board as a contribution to world peace, masking the reality of naked force deployed in the service of American interests.
Gaza is placed prominently at the forefront of this project, with claims that the Board would mobilise and oversee its reconstruction. A handful of cosmetic and media-attractive projects would likely be carried out in Gaza to manufacture a sense of credibility. Yet the Board led plans for Gaza contain numerous farcical elements that reveal the Strip to be little more than a charitable façade.
These plans deliberately absolve Israel of any responsibility of Gaza destruction and genocide; they make no mention, even symbolic, of Palestinian self-determination; they entrench the political separation between Gaza and the West Bank; and they entirely exclude Palestinians from participating in decisions about their own future.
Instead, the Board of War has invited Benjamin Netanyahu, a war criminal with an ICC arrest warrant, to determine the fate of the very people whose destruction he orchestrated.
Most likely, the Board of War will face two scenarios. The first is that the it fades quietly into the margins of history, remembered as yet another Trump-style media spectacle, loud, provocative, and short lived. In this sense, it would resemble his heavily publicised ‘Deal of the Century’ in 2020, which ultimately generated far more headlines than tangible outcomes.
The Board’s very design makes it inseparable from Trump himself. He is formally designated as its Chairman, wielding unchecked authority: he alone may invite or dismiss members, interpret the charter, adjudicate disputes, and dissolve the organisation at will. In essence, the Board is structured not as an institution but as an extension of one man.
A more dangerous scenario, however, lies not in the Board’s anticipated short lifespan but in the ideas it introduces into global politics. Even if the organisation itself collapses, its core concepts may endure, seeping into American political culture and tempting future leaders to embrace its aggressive, unilateral model.
This raises a fundamental question: does the Trump Doctrine merely reflect the idiosyncrasies of a transient president, or does it expose a deeper and long standing essence of US policy, one long concealed beneath layers of soft diplomacy, masking the beast’s fangs with practiced smiles?
Scepticism and deep concern are therefore justified, and necessary. The Trump Doctrine appears to signal a structural shift in US strategy, pointing toward a sustained mode of confrontation rather than episodic disruption. It openly disparages the UN, shows scant regard for international norms, dialogue, or diplomacy, and revives instead a crude cowboy mentality: a lone rider charging across open frontiers, planting his flag at the furthest point his horse can reach, declaring ownership of the land, and fortifying himself to eliminate anyone who dares to contest that claim.
Khaled Al Hroub is Palestinian academic and author of Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide, and Hamas: Political Thought and Practice.
Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@alaraby.co.uk
Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff, or the author's employer.