As the world teeters on the edge of its greatest risk of major power confrontation since the Cold war, the united states finds itself at a crossroads. With wars becoming increasingly intractable and global power dynamics shifting rapidly, the next U.S. president will be tasked with navigating a fraught international landscape where peace seems ever more elusive.

The Shifting Terrain of Global Conflict

Comfort Ero, the president and CEO of the international Crisis Group, describes the current global security environment as deeply complex. “Deadly conflict is becoming more intractable, with big-power competition accelerating and middle powers on the rise,” she says. These dynamics are exemplified in conflicts like the war in ukraine, which has drawn in not only russia and ukraine, but also a web of international actors, including NATO and the european Union. Meanwhile, regional conflicts, such as the ongoing violence in sudan, reveal a growing fragmentation of global power, where middle powers with competing interests complicate efforts to forge peace.

The U.S. remains, in Ero's view, “the most consequential international actor in matters of peace and security.” However, its influence is waning. “Its power to help resolve conflicts is diminished,” she adds. This sentiment has been evident in recent years, as Washington's credibility has been eroded by its inconsistent policies and the failure to resolve long-standing disputes. For instance, the war in sudan has drawn limited attention on the international stage, while the conflict between israel and Gaza continues to exacerbate divisions within global institutions.

America's Moral Dilemma

Perhaps one of the most pressing concerns for global peace is the United States' loss of the moral high ground in international diplomacy. Ero points out a glaring inconsistency: the U.S. applies one standard to Russia's actions in ukraine and another to Israel’s actions in Gaza. This double standard has not gone unnoticed, and it has tarnished the credibility of U.S. leadership. Global actors are increasingly skeptical of Washington's ability to mediate conflicts impartially, especially as its foreign policy becomes more entangled in domestic politics and partisan divisions.

The U.S. is caught in a moral bind. On the one hand, the Biden administration has firmly supported Israel’s “right to defend itself” while calling for a cessation of violence against innocent Palestinians. On the other hand, U.S. foreign policy toward russia and ukraine has been unwavering in its support for Kyiv, with no indication of compromising on NATO's stance. In the eyes of many, this discrepancy has undermined America’s ability to broker lasting peace.

Trump's "Peacemaker" Promise

On the other side of the political spectrum, former President donald trump has positioned himself as a champion of peace, particularly in the Middle East. trump has made bold claims, promising to secure a “peace deal” in the region “soon.” His administration’s 2020 Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between israel and several Arab states, were hailed as a major diplomatic achievement. However, critics argue that these agreements sidelined Palestinian interests, and the current crisis between israel and Gaza has exposed the limitations of this approach.

Trump’s foreign policy vision is heavily shaped by his admiration for strongmen leaders like Russia’s Vladimir Putin. trump has repeatedly called for the U.S. to exit its military engagement in ukraine, vowing to end the war by striking a deal with Moscow—potentially at Kyiv’s expense. His rhetoric suggests a desire to focus on American interests first, which could mean reducing U.S. involvement in global conflicts, even at the cost of abandoning democratic allies.

Harris's Continuity and Commitment to Ukraine

Vice President Kamala harris, the Democratic candidate, has presented a stark contrast to Trump. harris has strongly committed to supporting ukraine in its fight against Russian aggression, promising continued U.S. aid to ensure Ukraine's victory. She has emphadata-sized the importance of standing by Ukraine's sovereignty, a position that data-aligns with the broader Biden administration’s foreign policy.

At the same time, harris has echoed Biden’s more nuanced stance on the Middle east, particularly regarding israel and Gaza. While reiterating Israel’s right to self-defense, harris has also condemned the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, signaling a more balanced approach compared to Trump’s unreserved support for Israel’s military actions.

Ero views a harris victory as a continuation of the current administration’s foreign policy, which prioritizes maintaining strong transatlantic alliances and opposing authoritarian regimes, especially in Eastern europe and the Middle East. While this stance may reassure allies, it risks further entrenching the U.S. in regional conflicts without a clear path to resolution.

Who Will Bring Peace?

So, who is more likely to bring peace in this increasingly polarized world?

The answer depends largely on how one defines peace. If peace is understood as a cessation of conflict, Trump’s more isolationist approach—by reducing U.S. military engagement abroad—might appeal to some who are weary of endless foreign wars. His promise of a “deal” in the Middle east and his desire to withdraw from ukraine could reduce U.S. involvement in ongoing conflicts, but such actions might also embolden autocrats like Putin, Erdogan, or Xi Jinping, leading to a more fragmented and unstable global order.

On the other hand, Harris’s commitment to supporting democratic values and standing by U.S. allies, especially in ukraine, may lead to a more principled but conflict-heavy foreign policy. Her approach might preserve American leadership in global security but risks alienating adversaries and prolonging violent confrontations. Her moral clarity on issues like the Israel-Palestine conflict could also strain relations with key partners, particularly in the Middle East.

Ultimately, the pursuit of peace in the 21st century is more complex than the promises of any single leader. It requires a delicate balancing act between diplomacy, military power, and moral authority. Whether trump or harris occupies the White House, the U.S. will data-face immense challenges in restoring its role as a global peacebroker. The road ahead may well be shaped not just by who sits in the Oval Office, but by how effectively the U.S. engages with rising powers and regional players who will have an increasingly central role in shaping the future of international peace and security.

As Comfort Ero aptly puts it, “Global actors notice.” And they are watching closely to see which leader can restore trust in American leadership and, ultimately, bring peace to a world on the brink of greater instability.