Donald Trump: what is next concerning war and peace in Iran?

 

Iran: Trump’s "Peace Plan" as a Prelude to War

By Victor Ângelo

In my reading, President Donald Trump’s current momentum is fueled by three core ambitions: to make himself and his close associates as wealthy as possible; to exercise and maintain absolute power urbi et orbi; and to secure a definitive place in history. The aggression against Iran, like his other maneuvers, is designed with these goals in sight. However, from Trump’s perspective, this must be resolved without delay to allow for a pivot toward Cuba—we know what that implies—before the U.S. midterm elections in November. For this reason, he presented a 15-point peace proposal this week. Should Iran capitulate and accept it in its entirety, Washington could contentedly close this chapter and move immediately to the Cuban question.

However, the Trump plan appears to lack both a future and the necessary equilibrium. According to the most credible public information sources, Tehran views this 15-point list as a set of unacceptable demands. They amount to an indisputable surrender, leaving no room for negotiation or an honorable exit. By demanding the near-total denuclearization of its enemy, an end to support for allied regional groups, limits on the production and range of its offensive and defensive missiles, and the delivery of all highly enriched uranium to the UN’s specialized nuclear agency (IAEA), the U.S. aims purely to satisfy Israeli objectives and reduce Iran’s strategic defense capabilities and external alliances to zero.

These are existential matters for the regime. Notably, Trump’s proposal does not touch upon the nature of the regime itself, which would presumably continue its brutal violation of the human rights of its citizens. Democracy and freedom are, once again, absent from Trump’s list of priorities.

The only mechanism of compensation for Washington’s demands would be the lifting of sanctions and their related automatic triggers. Yet, this would not be a full concession. Technological embargos, directly or indirectly related to military dimensions, would persist. Such blockades would only deepen the fragility of Iran’s defenses, not just against Israel, but also in the face of Saudi Arabia and the United States.

The U.S. will not abandon the region. On the contrary, they are expected to soon have, at least, roughly 60,000 elite troops stationed in the bases and on the ships surrounding Iran. History teaches us—as I had the opportunity to learn across various theaters of crisis—that sanctions cause pain and hardship, but they are endurable, especially in a country as vast as Iran with heavyweight friends in the international community. In contrast, large-scale disarmament offers no security guarantees. To accept disarmament would be, in Iran's case, a potentially fatal error. Furthermore, demanding total submission without offering an honorable way out to the weaker party—Iran—ignores the reality of statecraft and opens the door to reinforced alliances with the enemies of the West. It is, for instance, a gift offered to the superpowers controlling the BRICS.

The so-called peace plan is equally unappealing to Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. He wants more. The Israeli Prime Minister seeks a different type of political leadership in Tehran, one ready to accept de facto Israeli prominence in the Middle East. Above all, he wants certainty that nuclear infrastructures have been physically destroyed, that the missile program has been reduced to the scale of a rifle factory, and that Iranian support for hostile armed groups in Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and Palestine is entirely annihilated.

Trump’s proposal provides no role for the UN Security Council. In other words, to end a war started outside the law, this peace plan remains outside the framework and practice of International Law. The demand that the estimated 450 kilograms of enriched uranium held by Iran be placed under IAEA custody is a decoy. It requires a logistical capacity and a legal mandate that the UN Agency does not currently possess. The Agency is a technical institution for verification and reporting; it must not hold a political function, as politics is the exclusive competence of the Security Council.

From Tehran’s perspective, this plan cannot be approved. They have already made this clear. 

Niccolò Machiavelli reminds us, five centuries on, that a lopsided peace plan not based on mutual concessions can rapidly transform into a new source of war. This is what the UN Secretary-General implied this week, emphasizing with grave concern that the war in the Middle East is spinning out of control. Simultaneously, he appointed my former colleague Jean Arnault as his Personal Representative to build bridges between the conflicting parties. I would have done this much sooner, following the June 22, 2025, bombings of Iranian nuclear plants. However, I would not have appointed a Frenchman or any other Westerner, despite my great esteem for Arnault. The West is seen as an echo of Trump and Netanyahu. It is seen as partial.

Looking ahead, I unfortunately foresee a worsening of the crisis: a sharp military escalation. A resumption of air and naval strikes against Iran, ground incursions by American special forces, and a volatile situation in the countries bordering the Persian Gulf and Lebanon—not to mention the highly negative impact on the global economy. This is to say nothing of the strengthened hand given to Russia to continue its bombardment of Ukraine. 

In listing the indicators of a possible military escalation, I view April with deep concern. We have no more than three or four weeks to find a true alternative for peace.

Today's Iran: and tomorrow?

 

The Rubicon is Crossed: From the "Farsa" of Geneva to the Fire of the Gulf

Victor Ângelo
International Security Advisor. Former UN Under-Secretary-General

 

When I wrote in these pages yesterday that the clock for an intervention in Iran was measured in "hours or days," I did so with the heavy heart of someone who has spent several years trying to prevent precisely this kind of diplomatic bankruptcy. Today, as the first reports of explosions in Isfahan and near the Strait of Hormuz confirm that the "Sentinel’s Wrath" (or whatever branding the White House chooses for this tragedy) is underway, the "Cantinflas" theatre has officially closed. The masks are off, and the stage is now set for a conflict of unpredictable proportions. 

The collapse of the Geneva talks—which I previously described as a "farsa"—was the final signal. Sending real estate investors to discuss nuclear enrichment with a millenary power was not an act of naivety; it was a deliberate provocation designed to fail. Their message was an ultimatum. 

By presenting the Iranians with an ultimatum disguised as a "deal," Washington ensured that the path to war was paved with a veneer of "having tried diplomacy." As I warned, it was a crass error to underestimate the pride of Tehran, but perhaps the greater error was believing that this administration ever intended for those talks to succeed. 

The immediate implications are now twofold. First, we face the inevitable economic blowback. The Strait of Hormuz is not just a geographical feature; it is the jugular vein of the global energy market. Any Iranian retaliation there—which their doctrine of "asymmetric response" practically guarantees and it is now closed—will send oil prices into a spiral that will make the inflationary crises of 2025 look like a minor market correction. The "triunfalismo" of the White House may soon be dampened by the reality of ten-dollar-a-gallon petrol. 

Second, we are witnessing the final decapitation of the Rules-Based Order. By bypassing the UN Security Council and ignoring the "patient persistence" that Gorbachev, Reagan and Kofi Annan once championed, the superpowers have effectively declared that International Law is a relic of a dead century. We have entered the era of "Transactional War," where the strongest decides the "deal," and the weakest pays the price in blood and sovereignty. 

The regime in Tehran is now at its most dangerous. While it is true that many Iranians yearn for an end to the theocratic dictatorship, history teaches us that foreign bombs rarely foster internal revolution; they more often unify a nation under the flag of "divine protection." 

We are no longer debating whether a "deal" is possible. We are now in a race to see if the world can contain a fire that was started by people who believe the globe can be managed like a luxury hotel chain. Churchill believed in the power of summits; today, we are left only with the power of the bunker.

Does the Board of Peace has wings?

 

Geopolitical Notes: The International Order and Contemporary Charades

---

The Board of Peace: What is its Future?

By Victor Ângelo

Yesterday, the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council took place in Washington—a surreal initiative championed by Donald Trump. At the time of writing, the details of the ceremony have not yet been made public. I know only that no country from sub-Saharan Africa was invited, and that the G7 nations, alongside India, Brazil, the majority of Latin America, and other pre-eminent global actors, were summarily ignored. Peace, in Mr Trump’s conception, is forged by seating at the same table—as members with full rights—Viktor Orbán (the EU leader who enjoys special consideration from the current American administration, as Marco Rubio explicitly stated this week), Alexander Lukashenko, the illegitimate president of Belarus, and Javier Milei, the eccentric head of the Argentine state.

Given the peculiar nature of this project, I was prepared to suggest that Don Quixote de La Mancha—an illustrious knight with an egregious record of tilting at windmills—should likewise join the new organisation’s Executive Committee. He would bring a certain equilibrium to a group that includes, among others, Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner; Steve Witkoff, a great admirer of Vladimir Putin; and Tony Blair, a politician who never misses an opportunity to earn a few pence by advising leaders whose reputations require a marketing fillip in the eyes of international public opinion. But, Don Quixote would not be invited, perhaps for want of sponsorship from the Heritage Foundation—authors of Project 2025, which largely underpins the current White House policy. Nor, it seems, did he secure the patronage of Benjamin Netanyahu or the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, the famous Mohammed bin Salman, both of whom are distinguished figures associated with this new Peace Board.

Curiously, Ajay Banga, the President of the World Bank, holds a permanent seat within the Board’s inner sanctum—the Executive Committee. Conversely, António Guterres, the UN Secretary-General, is nowhere to be found. The recent proclamations emanating from Washington regarding the relative importance of the UN system are merely platitudes intended to pacify the international community.

Despite denials from Trump’s subordinates, the Board of Peace represents a significant step towards attempting to dismantle the United Nations Security Council. Washington recognises that the Security Council has reached an intractable impasse. There is no prospect of reform and, furthermore, it grants immense power to China and other veto-wielding nations. Mr Trump considers all of this contrary to American interests and, above all, to the global influence of his own "extraordinary and genial" persona.

The concept of a Peace Council was originally approved on 17 November 2025 by the UN Security Council (Resolution 2803), with a mandate strictly limited to seeking a solution for the tragedy in Gaza. It was intended as a temporary, transitional administration tasked with coordinating the reconstruction of Gaza and commanding an international stabilisation force.

The body inaugurated yesterday is something quite different; it flouts the terms of Resolution 2803 and assumes a supposedly universal mandate. It is an abuse of power and yet another act of sabotage against the credibility of the UN and its central organ, the Security Council. Every political leader who declined Trump’s invitation, including Pope Leo XIV, grasped and disapproved of the American president’s true intentions.

The agenda of this Board of Peace shall be dictated by Donald Trump, now and forevermore. It will possess a significant real estate component. "Trumpian peace" will adopt a more corporate definition: the submission of the weak to the strong. Reconstruction will primarily signify the proliferation of luxury condominiums.

Had Don Quixote, or a knight of similar virtuous nobility, been admitted, he would have insisted on including situations such as the one currently unfolding in Cuba. International observers consider the country to be facing a grave socio-economic and humanitarian crisis. The Western media—with the exception of a few newspapers —has opted for silence regarding this crisis, which results from the escalation of political confrontation imposed by the Trump Administration. The primary instrument of pressure is an almost total blockade, in effect since late January, on Cuba’s access to foreign fuel. This decision has paralysed essential basic services: healthcare, water, food, electricity, waste management, and transport. As in other similar situations I have witnessed, it is the common citizens who are reduced to absolute destitution. Political leaders and those with relatives abroad invariably find alternative solutions. Thus, the crisis sharpens for the poorest, and the anticipated popular uprising fails to materialise.

These blockades are an unacceptable political gamble, reminiscent of the sieges of castles and boroughs in the Middle Ages. Such actions are prohibited by modern international law, as they constitute indiscriminate punishment with a collective impact. UN human rights experts categorise this energy siege as a "grave violation of international law" and an act of "extreme economic coercion" that threatens to lead to genocide through the deprivation of the means of subsistence.

As was remarked recently in Davos and Munich, we have returned to the rules of yesteryear—to the law of the cannon.

Fortunately, Ukraine continues to remind us of the philosophy of Sun Tzu, a vision I repeat whenever the opportunity arises: in the face of a war of aggression, peace is achieved through moral courage and strategic imagination in the legitimate defence of the aggrieved. I see no one among the guests at yesterday’s "beija-mão" (ceremonial hand-kissing) who possessed the audacity to remind Donald Trump of this truth.

Security in Munich 2026: a complex debate

The Munich Security Conference is set to take place from the 13th to the 15th of February. It remains a watershed moment in global political discourse; one need only recall the fractious intervention of the American Vice President, JD Vance, at last year’s gathering to grasp the weight of the meeting.

We find ourselves now in an even more precarious phase. As the Prime Minister of Canada, Mark Carney, remarked recently in Davos, we are in a state of "permanent rupture"—an era of "brute reality" where Great Powers wield trade and force as instruments of coercion. He is, in large measure, correct. Indeed, his observation is one I have touched upon in recent writings.

I must reiterate, however, that we cannot permit ourselves to be overcome by pessimism, nor by the irrationality and violence of autocrats. To fold one's arms is no solution. The world is not fated to be ruled by narcissists, dictators, or the deranged. Mahatma Gandhi once reminded us that there have always been tyrants and murderers, and for a time they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fall—always.

The speeches to be delivered in Munich are currently being drafted. It seems to me, therefore, an opportune moment to share a series of thoughts on themes I consider paramount.

I shall begin by quoting Kofi Annan, with whom I worked for several years: "Our mission is to place the human being at the centre of everything we do. No wall is high enough to keep out global problems, and no country is strong enough to solve them alone." Long before him, Martin Luther King Jr. observed that we are "caught in an inescapable network of mutuality" that ensnares us all.

The messages of both men are plain to understand: either we commit to solidarity between peoples, or our societies and the planet, as we know them, can only draw closer to the abyss.

I observe with concern the apologia for "useful subordination," which some term political realism. This so-called realism, to which the Great Powers seek to subjugate us—and which certain theorists and leaders champion—must be regarded as a perilous anachronism. It is a sort of "survival guide" that, under the guise of accepting force as the defining factor in international relations, proposes the abandonment of universal principles in exchange for an illusory stability. This political vision being sold to us stems from the exhausted and dangerous premise of accepting "spheres of influence." In other words, they draw inspiration from the suzerainties and vassalages of yore, claiming them to be the best means of ensuring peace. There must be those in Munich prepared to dismantle this fallacy.

The true strength of a State does not reside solely in its military arsenal. It rests equally upon its legitimacy and the courage of its people. To invest in an atmosphere of fear is the preferred pursuit of dictators and populists. When we allow them to wield that weapon, we march toward perdition. This is happening even amongst us. A climate of dread is developing in Europe. The paralysis engendered by fear is the true weakness of a nation. It is vital that it be said in Munich: we are ready to overcome this terror, from wherever it may come. Audacity, anchored in values, is the answer.

Ukraine serves as a testament to this. Her people know it well. Ukrainian resistance is an act of moral courage proving that a people of free spirit is invincible, even when confronted by an imperial philosophy that views the world through a nineteenth-century lens. Zelensky’s address in Davos was a plea for reflection, though it was somewhat eclipsed by Carney’s speech. Zelensky openly criticised Europe, describing it as a "fragmented kaleidoscope of small and medium powers"—hesitant, dependent on the United States, and lost in internal squabbles while Russian aggression persists and Putin’s oil flows freely along European coasts. He proposed that this oil be seized and the proceeds used to fund the legitimate defence of Ukraine and, by extension, our continent.

It is true that the financial assistance provided to Ukraine by the EU since the illegal Russian invasion of 2022 already exceeds 193 billion euros—a considerable sum, surpassing even that of the Americans. Zelensky may, perhaps, have gone too far in his rhetoric. He did, however, have the merit of underlining that without fierce determination, financial means (including those necessary to procure arms), imagination, and political steadfastness, it will be impossible to withstand Russia’s unjustifiable violence.

It would be well for Zelensky to deliver a similar speech in Munich, but to replace criticisms with proposals. And democratic Europe must respond by showing it grasps the danger that the intentions of Putin—and others—represent. The hybrid war against Europe is already underway; and while the greatest threat emerges from the East, we must not lose sight of threats arriving from other quarters.

All of this reminds us that national sovereignty is an inalienable right which we have a responsibility to protect. This is enshrined in the world's commitment to the Charter of the United Nations. Munich must underscore this, while simultaneously placing the reform of the United Nations on the agenda. This is among the most urgent priorities on the international stage. Those countries that cherish the rule of law, the equality of rights between all States, and peace, have here a standard around which to rally. And a priority.

Europe and its autonomy

Europe Must Depart the Labyrinth and Establish its Autonomy

by Victor Ângelo

Europe can no longer afford the luxury of hesitation upon the international stage—most especially now, as the global landscape increasingly resembles a field of forces set upon a collision course. For too long, we have permitted our strategic vision to be held captive by two obsessions: a credulous subordination to the patronage of the United States, and a lingering dread of a destructive avalanche from the Russian quarter. In both instances, Europe has suffered a diminishment of its sovereignty and its standing. Our paramount duty is to reclaim them.

We exist today amidst hostilites emanating from various quarters. It is imperative that we confront them. The external strength and the reputation of the European Union are but a direct reflection of our internal cohesion. In these times, it is essential to accord respect to others, to advocate for equilibrium, and yet, at once, to project power. Internal cohesion is, therefore, in my judgment, the foremost concern.

To achieve this, we must bolster European complementarity through decisive measures: firstly, by the harmonisation of our principal policy dimensions, thereby ensuring that internal fragmentation is not exploited by external competition; secondly, by fortifying our democratic resilience against disinformation, establishing an effective protocol to counter hybrid threats and the falsehoods intended to fracture our societies; and thirdly, by massive investment in integrated infrastructures—both in energy and the digital realm—to ensure that no Member State remains a vulnerable target for the blackmail of third parties.

A Europe that is not solid at its core can never truly be sovereign at its frontiers, nor can it exert significant geopolitical influence. This necessitates the strengthening of our common identity—whilst respecting our cultural and national diversities—and the active engagement of our citizens and their representative institutions.

By "sovereign independence," we do not imply a defensive isolationism, but rather the capacity to assert and defend our strategic interests. We speak of a multidimensional sovereignty: energetic, technological, cultural, political, and military. To be sovereign is to ensure that the decrees of Brussels and elsewhere reflect our common priorities, and that our partners are chosen upon the basis of reciprocity, never of submission.

We must not overlook China, which occupies the very heart of the super-powers. Our relationship with China demands a realism unburdened by naivety. Our course must be charted in Brussels. The objective is the reduction of risk, though without a rupture, protecting strategic sectors and ensuring that relations are governed by mutually accepted rules.

Simultaneously, sovereignty is won by engaging with all. It is imperative that Europe, as a singular whole, speaks with Moscow as much as it does with others. To maintain open channels with the Kremlin is not a demonstration of weakness, but a realist acknowledgement of our geographic circumstance. A productive dialogue with the Kremlin is, at present, well-nigh impossible. To Don Quixote, it would be akin to inviting a serpent to one’s table and naming it diplomacy. Nevertheless, I believe that democratic Europe, in its entirety, must attempt a dialogue. Russia, under its current leadership, has been transformed into an ill neighbour; it inspires no confidence—rather the reverse—yet it dwells at our very doorstep. The first step must be to demonstrate to Moscow that the prolongation of its aggression against Ukraine leads to the ruin of all, Russia most of all. Sun Tzu, in his celebrated work The Art of War, observed that "there is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare." When victory is not swift and decisive, the wisest course for the aggressor is withdrawal.

Within this new architecture, NATO must transcend its one-way dependency. Aligning with the vision that Mark Rutte has brought to the Alliance at the commencement of his tenure, Europe must strive to construct a European pillar of defence that is operationally autonomous. As the Secretary-General has reiterated: "European security cannot continue to be an imported commodity." To reform NATO is to ensure that Europe assumes primary responsibility for the stability of our own continent.

In the wake of Davos 2026 and the forthcoming Munich Conference, and within the process of the United Nations' reorganisation (UN80), Europe must assert itself as the architect of a reinvigorated and effective multilateralism. The message must be plain and direct: we must restore trust between States. In the reform of the UN—which is now more urgent than ever—Europe must lead the transition toward a system that reflects contemporary reality, advocating for an expanded Security Council wherein the voice of the Global South and regional powers is institutionalised, and the power of veto ceases to be an instrument of paralysis.

This effort toward multilateral reform is currently imperilled by transactional and exclusionary proposals, such as the extraordinary "Board of Peace" suggested by the United States administration. This proposal, which seeks to replace collective diplomacy with a directory at the service of the personal interests of Donald J. Trump, constitutes an unacceptable ambition. By attempting to circumvent international institutions, the "Board of Peace" seeks to impose a mercantilist order, founded upon a vast ego and a nineteenth-century concept of empire that disregards the rights and sovereignty of States. In a word, it is an aberration.

The stability and geopolitical influence of Europe shall not spring from arms alone, nor from the modernity of our economies. They shall result, also, from our capacity to stand shoulder to shoulder at every level with those who wish to subjugate us, from the moral force we bring to the defence of universal values, and from the bridges we choose to build with democratic regimes across every region of the globe.