When economics replaces geography in the search for peace

In a striking departure from conventional frameworks, U.S. President Donald Trump appears to approach international politics with a mindset unlike anything that has governed the global order since the end of World War II. He is not merely tweaking the rules of the game; he is attempting to rewrite them altogether, dismantling many of the assumptions that have shaped international relations for decades.

These new rules spare no one. They apply to allies as much as adversaries, Europe foremost among them, just as they target China and Russia. They also extend to states, axes, and movements associated with political Islam, both Sunni and Shiite. In Trump’s world, there are no fixed relationships or guaranteed alliances, only a fluid web of interests governed by a stark calculus of profit and loss.

In trade, Trump shifted the United States from the role of a tolerant patron of its allies to that of an uncompromising equal. Maximum tariffs and punitive duties became tools of pressure, designed to force countries to the negotiating table and extract concessions once deemed unthinkable. This “maximum pressure” doctrine in economics finds its counterpart in the military sphere in what can only be described as a “scorched earth” approach.

That model has been on full display in Gaza and southern Lebanon. In Israel’s war against Hamas in Gaza, and in its confrontation with Hezbollah in Lebanon, an unprecedented pattern of widespread destruction was employed. The devastation inflicted on Gaza is without parallel in the history of the Palestinian–Israeli conflict. The same holds true in southern Lebanon, where dozens of border villages were reduced to rubble in a manner unseen in any previous war. What unfolded in Gaza and southern Lebanon alike can, objectively, be labeled a “scorched earth” policy.

If “scorched earth” policy is the common denominator between Gaza and southern Lebanon, Trump’s preferred pathway to a solution is another, no less unconventional, policy. Previous initiatives to resolve the Arab–Israeli conflict rested, to varying degrees, on the formula of “land for peace,” coupled with security guarantees. Trump’s initiative, by contrast, enters through an entirely different door.

The American president places the economy at the heart of the solution. With regard to Gaza, a comprehensive economic initiative was floated, complete with a detailed map outlining what the territory could become if the project succeeds. During negotiations between Lebanon and Israel under the auspices of the Mechanism Committee, a similar economic proposal for southern Lebanon was also discussed, one centered on reconstruction and improved living standards as integral components of stability.

Nor is this approach confined to these two arenas. A comparable initiative has been mentioned in the context of Israel–Syria relations, referenced by U.S. envoy Tom Barrack. It reportedly includes plans for an economic and touristic zone, and ski resorts in southern Syria.

In this sense, Trump’s initiative effectively abandons the logic of “land for peace” and replaces it with a different equation altogether: economic opportunity and quality of life in exchange for security and peace. It is an approach that appeals directly to the interests and futures of peoples, rather than the calculations over geography. By this logic, what matters is not the size of the land, but the quality of life that can be built upon what remains of it.