admin
President Trump used his address to the United Nations General Assembly to make a bold, unmistakable claim: that he “ended seven unendable wars,” and he did it without the help of the U.N. He spoke like a commander-in-chief who believes in results over empty resolutions, reminding the world that American leadership still produces peace when others stand idly by. That message landed like a punch in the gut to global elites who prefer endless talk to decisive action.
Trump didn’t leave listeners guessing about which conflicts he meant, rattling off a list that included Cambodia and Thailand, Kosovo and Serbia, the Congo and Rwanda, Pakistan and India, Israel and Iran, Egypt and Ethiopia, and Armenia and Azerbaijan. Whether you cheer or jeer, the plain fact is that these are real tensions that have threatened lives for decades, and he claims to have moved them toward pause or peace. For millions of Americans fed up with international paralysis, that pragmatic, deal-driven approach is a breath of fresh air.
The President made the point bluntly: when the world needed action, the U.N. offered a broken escalator and a teleprompter that failed — symbolic of an institution that all too often prefers lofty language to enforceable outcomes. Conservatives have long argued that the U.N. is a talking shop full of bureaucrats who are more interested in photo-ops than in protecting the innocent or securing borders. Trump’s criticism of the institution was more than rhetoric; it was a warning that American strength, not global lecturing, produces results.
Unsurprisingly, mainstream fact-checkers rushed in to downplay the claim, calling parts of it misleading and pointing out that some of the deals are fragile or disputed. Left-leaning outlets love to reduce complex diplomacy to a scorecard, but nitpicking the mechanics doesn’t erase the simple reality that tensions eased and leaders came to the table. Conservatives should welcome scrutiny, but we must also recognize that bold diplomacy — using leverage, sanctions, and the threat of consequences — is how peace is often achieved, not by waiting for unanimous approval from a globalist committee.
Let’s be clear: many of these outcomes involved American pressure and reciprocal incentives — trade, security guarantees, and direct talks orchestrated by Washington — and in at least one notable case leaders even signed a joint declaration on U.S. soil. That kind of hands-on mediation is exactly what conservative foreign policy has long argued for: put American power and persuasion to work for peace and prosperity, instead of surrendering leadership to international technocrats. The results may not be perfect yet, but tangible progress beats moralizing impotence every time.
Meanwhile, other world leaders and institutions rush to reassert their own solutions, but many are signaling that they will work with the Trump approach because it delivers. The Palestinians’ renewed willingness to engage around a U.N.-backed Gaza plan and other regional initiatives shows that serious, outcome-focused diplomacy shakes loose agreements where empty platitudes do not. Conservatives should not apologize for a foreign policy that prioritizes American interests and leverages real power to stop bloodshed and open markets.
Patriotic Americans know that strength, not sanctimony, keeps the peace and protects our values. If ending bloody conflicts requires bargaining, tariffs, pressure, and sometimes putting American interests first, then that is the policy we should champion. Let the globalists wring their hands while we defend results — real peace, safer borders, and a world that respects the United States for what it does, not what it promises to do on paper.
