At a time when some of the world’s most dangerous decisions are made through Trump’s social media platform, the lines between deterrence and political theatrics are dangerously blurred. Nuclear weapons have become bargaining chips, not last resorts. This article poses a simple yet urgent question: Why does Trump threaten Russia and Iran with force while remaining silent about Israel’s actions in Gaza? Can peace be achieved through selective outrage? Can justice be built on exceptions? When power trumps principle, politics loses its meaning — and the world becomes hostage to personal whims.
In a dramatic announcement that shook the international stage, President Donald Trump declared on 2 August 2025 that he had ordered the repositioning of two American nuclear submarines near Russian waters. The move was a direct response to former Russian President Dmitry Medvedev’s veiled threat to activate the “Dead Hand” nuclear system. Simultaneously, Trump doubled down on threats against Iran, boasting of the June strikes that targeted its Fordow and Natanz nuclear facilities, and reaffirming his readiness to “crush” any attempt by Tehran to revive its nuclear programme.
Yet, amid these bold displays of nuclear brinkmanship, Trump continues to exempt his closest ally, Israel, from his “peace through strength” doctrine. While he relentlessly threatens Russia and Iran, he opts for soft diplomatic language when it comes to Israel — even as the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza deepens, with over 60,000 reported deaths and critical aid convoys blocked at the Rafah border crossing.
Since returning to the White House, Trump has framed “peace through strength” as the cornerstone of his foreign policy. But the way he applies this strategy reveals deep inconsistencies. He uses it as a sword against adversaries and a shield to protect friends. His threats of annihilation towards Iran, and his warnings to Russia of being “on the edge of disaster,” contrast starkly with his message to Netanyahu: “I will be very tough with him,” he said in July — more of a friendly nudge than a real warning. Notably, these high-stakes messages are often delivered not through formal diplomatic channels, but via his Truth Social platform — turning matters of war and peace into viral posts.
This contradiction reveals a dangerous flaw in Trump’s approach to deterrence: it is driven not by principle, but by political convenience. Israel, shielded by bipartisan support in Congress and a powerful pro-Israel lobby, is treated as an exception. Washington deploys submarines for Moscow and missiles for Tehran — but when it comes to Israel, even in the face of immense civilian suffering in Gaza, it sends a diplomat and offers private negotiations.
Experts are raising alarms. Hans Kristensen of the Federation of American Scientists warns that Trump’s nuclear manoeuvres risk creating a “commitment trap” that could spiral into uncontrollable escalation. Daryl Kimball from the Arms Control Association calls Trump’s nuclear threats “reckless and irresponsible” — especially when announced via smartphone. UN Secretary-General António Guterres has warned that nuclear escalation poses a global threat, while France and China continue to urge broader dialogue.
The problem is not just a double standard — it is the message it sends to the world: that accountability depends on alliances, not actions. And this is not just morally troubling; it is geopolitically destabilising. In Iran’s case, for instance, unconditional American support for Israel is used to justify Tehran’s continued backing of Hamas and Hezbollah under the banner of “resistance”.
Trump’s attempts to position himself as a peacemaker — a role he often cites when referencing his past mediation between India and Pakistan — are undermined by this selective morality. His bid to broker a regional settlement starting in Gaza sounds ambitious, but without holding Israel accountable, any peace initiative is doomed from the outset. He wants credit for extinguishing a fire without naming who lit the match.
Inside the United States, growing bipartisan concern surrounds Trump’s nuclear posturing. Lawmakers from both parties are now pushing to require congressional approval for any future nuclear military action, disturbed by the realisation that war may now be declared from a smartphone post.
Perhaps the gravest concern is that Trump appears to operate not from strategic clarity but from a “deal-making” mindset, as if global security were a casino table. But this time, he is not gambling with dollars or prestige — he is playing with humanity’s future. The real question is not whether Trump might press the nuclear button — it is when, and why.
Trump’s version of “peace through strength” seems to follow a troubling logic: threaten adversaries with bombs, warn Iran of annihilation, and gently ask Israel to “ease up”. But in the eyes of the world, this equation is unravelling. Deterrence is not only about weapons — it is about moral consistency. Without that, “peace through strength” becomes a dangerous illusion… and a blueprint for the next global disaster.
Dr Marwa El-Shinawy: Academic and Writer
