- June 2, 2026
- 3:16 pm
- World News
Three Crises, One Political Deadlock
US President Donald Trump once again faced that part of world politics that cannot be pushed through with a single statement, loud promise, or public ultimatum. Ukraine, the Gaza Strip, and Iran have become three areas where the expectation of a quick result has collided with protracted negotiations, tough interests of the parties, and a reality where every concession has a price.
According to The New York Times, the Trump administration was counting on faster progress on several international initiatives. However, by mid-2026, it became clear: neither Russia’s war against Ukraine, nor the situation in Gaza, nor the conflict around Iran are moving according to the scenario of quick political victories.
For the Israeli audience, this topic is especially important. It is not only about Washington and its diplomatic reputation. American policy directly affects Israel’s security, pressure on Iran, the future of Gaza, the stability of Ukraine, and the entire balance of power in the Middle East.
Why promises turned out to be easier than negotiations
Trump came to power with a well-known political formula: complex conflicts can be quickly stopped if you act tough, confidently, and directly. In the public sphere, it sounded impressive. But international crises rarely end because one side wants a beautiful date or a loud result.
Iran is in no hurry to close questions on nuclear and missile programs. Russia shows no readiness for an honest peace with Ukraine. In Gaza, even after the truce and the release of hostages, issues of governance, security, reconstruction, and further Israeli military presence remain unresolved.
This is where the main problem arises: diplomacy requires not only announcing a plan but also daily pressure, control, working with details, and sometimes the willingness to admit that the other side is simply stalling.
Iran and the Strait of Hormuz: negotiations without a final point
According to the publication, after the announced ceasefire on April 7, the US hoped to quickly reach agreements with Iran, including on sensitive security issues and the Strait of Hormuz. But negotiations on Tehran’s nuclear and missile programs continue, and there is no final decision.
For Israel, this is not an external topic, but a matter of its own security. Any weakening of pressure on Iran is perceived in Jerusalem through the prism of threats from the Iranian axis, missile programs, proxy groups, and regional instability.
Tehran, according to experts, may deliberately delay the negotiation process. The logic is simple: if Washington does not want to return to large-scale military actions, and the American public does not support a new war, then time becomes a tool of pressure.
Such tactics are well known in the Middle East. The side that is not in a hurry often gains additional leverage. The side that promised a quick result gradually finds itself in an uncomfortable position.
Ukraine: the promise of ‘within 24 hours’ shattered by a war of attrition
Another painful example is Russia’s war against Ukraine. Trump previously stated that he could end this conflict within 24 hours of taking office. But 16 months after the inauguration, a peace agreement has not been reached.
This is an important detail. The war that the Kremlin is waging against Ukraine has long ceased to be a conflict that can be closed with one meeting or one deal. There is a front, occupation, war crimes, security guarantees, the fate of territories, sanctions pressure, Europe’s position, and Kyiv’s fear of an imposed peace.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, as noted in the material, has already spoken about fatigue from endless negotiations. At the same time, the Russian side, according to the publication’s interlocutors, advocates the creation of a permanent diplomatic mechanism with working groups and regular meetings.
In practice, this may mean not moving towards peace, but an attempt to delay the process, fix diplomatic activity, and at the same time maintain pressure on Ukraine.
In this context, NAnews — News from Israel | Nikk.Agency considers the Ukrainian direction not as a distant European topic, but as part of the overall picture: if the aggressor gets the opportunity to buy time, this is seen in Moscow, Tehran, and the Middle East.
What Thomas Graham says
Former American diplomat Thomas Graham believes that a full-fledged negotiation process is necessary to end the war. According to him, the conflict is ‘ripe for resolution,’ moods in Moscow have changed, the front line has stabilized, and economic problems in Russia are accumulating.
But even such an assessment does not mean automatic peace. The negotiation process is not just a table, flags, and statements for the press. It is hard work with conditions, guarantees, control of implementation, and understanding that every pause can be used against Ukraine.
For Israel, this experience is also important. Any country living next to a constant threat understands: a bad agreement is sometimes more dangerous than the absence of an agreement if it gives the enemy time to regroup.
Gaza: the truce did not become a political solution
A separate direction is the Gaza Strip. Despite the release of hostages and the truce between Israel and Hamas, the further implementation of the plan proposed by Trump has effectively stalled.
According to journalists, the new Palestinian administration has not yet begun full-fledged work in the sector. The region’s reconstruction program remains on paper, and Israel continues military operations. This shows that even an important humanitarian and military result does not automatically turn into a sustainable political architecture.
For Israeli society, this sounds extremely practical. You can achieve a truce, you can return some hostages, you can reduce the intensity of hostilities. But if issues of Gaza’s governance, demilitarization, border control, the role of Hamas, and international guarantees are not resolved, the conflict remains open.
The main lesson for Washington and Israel
Richard Fontaine, CEO of the Center for a New American Security, noted that foreign policy rarely yields quick results. According to him, what matters is not the loud announcement, but the consistent implementation and management of the process.
This is perhaps the main conclusion of the entire situation. Peace plans, roadmaps, and political statements work only when there is a daily system of pressure, diplomacy, and control behind them.
The Trump administration is now facing difficulties on three key fronts. Ukraine has not achieved peace. Gaza has not received a sustainable new governance model. Iran has not given a final answer on issues directly affecting regional security.
For Israel, the conclusion is even harsher: you cannot build security solely on the expectation of quick American decisions. Washington remains the main ally, but the Middle East, Ukraine, and Iran show the same thing — opponents of democratic peace know how to wait, delay, and use negotiations as a weapon.