Earlier today, Donald Trump presented the first meeting of his newly created “Board of Peace” in Washington. It was a carefully staged event designed to project the image of a United States reshaping global order. Trump spoke of responsibility cooperation and announced more than $7 billion in humanitarian and reconstruction aid for Gaza. Only hours later, however, he shifted tone entirely. In a separate statement, he announced that a decision on Iran would come “within the next ten days”—a decision that, according to multiple reports, could include military action. The sequence is revealing. It shows how differently the concept of “peace” operates within Trump’s political architecture: peace in the morning, ultimatum in the afternoon.
In this logic, Gaza becomes the place where Trump can present peace as a humanitarian project. The region has no army, no air force, and no strategic depth. Its population depends on aid and is regularly subjected to Israeli military operations. Israel, meanwhile, is one of the United States’ closest allies—militarily supported, diplomatically shielded, and politically aligned. Against this backdrop, the newly announced Board of Peace does not resemble a multilateral institution. It is a U.S.-led structure without veto rights, without clear rules, and without international legitimacy. It is initiated, funded, and moderated by the United States. The participating states appear numerous, but their role is symbolic. They have no real influence; they serve as a backdrop for an American‑directed peace performance.
The fact that Trump creates a peace board but does not issue an ultimatum to Israel is central to understanding this architecture. If the goal were truly peace, the U.S. could pressure Israel at any moment. Israel is deeply dependent on American military, financial, and diplomatic support. A single ultimatum—comparable to the one Trump issued toward Iran today—would be enough to force an immediate ceasefire. The absence of such pressure reveals that “peace” in Gaza is not treated as an obligation but as a stage on which American leadership can be displayed without challenging existing power structures.
A just international peace order can only emerge if all states participate equally in decision‑making. The world does need structures in which no single country defines the rules and no president decides who deserves peace and who does not. But such an order cannot be built by a single state—and certainly not by a president who uses peace as a tool for consolidating power. The Board of Peace is therefore not an attempt to strengthen global cooperation. It is an attempt to establish an alternative power architecture operating outside existing multilateral frameworks.
The situation with Iran is entirely different. While Gaza has no military capacity, Iran possesses missiles, drones, regional alliances, and strategic depth. Iran is not a U.S. ally but a geopolitical rival with its own interests and leverage. For this reason, “peace” is not offered as dialogue but as a threat. Trump repeated today that “bad things” would happen if Iran did not comply, and he emphasized that a decision would come within ten days. Reports suggest that the U.S. military is prepared to act quickly if ordered. Diplomacy here is not negotiation; it is pressure. The objective is not conflict resolution but the weakening of Iran’s deterrence and strategic position.
The ultimatum toward Iran is therefore not aimed at peace but at structural dependency. A state that loses its military capacity loses its ability to act sovereignly. In this logic, “peace” becomes a mechanism for shifting power rather than ending conflict. Gaza becomes the place where the United States can perform peace because no counterpower exists. Iran becomes the place where peace is enforced because a counterpower does exist.
The contrast between Gaza and Iran reveals a clear pattern: Gaza receives “peace” because it has no power. Iran receives threats because it has power. Israel receives no ultimatum because it is an ally. The distribution of peace, pressure, and threat follows strategic interests, not moral principles. Peace is offered where no power exists and imposed where power must be broken.
In this architecture, peace is not the outcome of justice but the outcome of obedience. Trump is not building a new peace order; he is building a new power order in which “peace” serves two functions: generating cooperation where states are weak and enforcing submission where states are strong. Gaza serves as the stage. Iran serves as the target. And Israel serves as proof that ultimatums are not universal but selective.
