The six (or seven) wars Trump claims he ended from the White House

Donald Trump has always known the power of a good boast. The US president regularly tells supporters he accomplished what no one else could: that he ended multiple wars during his time in office, often rattling off the number.

Sometimes it’s six, sometimes seven. Sometimes he insists he did it in as little as six months. Always, he presents himself as the man who brought peace where others only fanned chaos.

“If you look at the six deals that I settled this year, they were all at war. I didn’t do any ceasefires,” he told Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy while seated in the Oval Office, before adding with a smirk: “I don’t think you need a ceasefire.”

Also Read: Trump once again claims he stopped India, Pakistan war

On Fox & Friends the next day, he bumped the total up to seven wars resolved. On Truth Social, he went further still, claiming he had averted a “possible nuclear disaster.”

The White House confirmed to The Independent that Trump was citing conflicts from both his first and second terms. It provided a list of six wars but declined to clarify the mysterious seventh.

Trump’s aides have at times dubbed him the “peacemaker-in-chief,” and he has openly angled for a Nobel Peace Prize, boasting he was “averaging about a war a month” and joking that his place in heaven might hinge on his peacemaking.

Since his trip to Scotland last month, he has repeatedly pushed that claim, according to PolitiFact. The New York Times also noted his frequent assertions that he resolved multiple wars while in office, citing his July remark at Turnberry: “I’m averaging about a war a month.”

But do the facts match the flourish? What emerges is some genuine interventions that paused hostilities, others where his role is contested or symbolic, and several where the peace was fragile or short-lived.

Israel and Iran

The most dramatic of Trump’s claimed “wars” came in June, when Israel launched strikes on Iranian nuclear sites and Iran responded with drones and missiles. The confrontation carried high stakes: Israel views Tehran’s nuclear program as a direct threat, while Iran insists its work is peaceful.

As reported by The Independent, Trump told NATO leaders after launching Operation Midnight Hammer that his administration had “just ended a war in 12 days that was simmering for 30 years.” On June 23, US forces struck Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities at Fordow and Natanz, along with the research base at Isfahan, using bunker buster bombs and Tomahawk cruise missiles. Trump claimed the sites had been “obliterated.”

The US entered the conflict on June 21, days after Israel’s surprise assault on Iranian nuclear and military infrastructure. Tehran retaliated with waves of missile and drone strikes on Israeli bases and cities.

Two days later, Trump announced on Truth Social that Israel and Iran had reached a “Complete and Total CEASEFIRE,” crediting Washington with brokering the deal. The Independent noted, however, that while US strikes may have curbed immediate escalation, they offered no guarantee of lasting peace in a region where tensions remain volatile.

As reported by The New York Times, the ceasefire followed 12 days of strikes that included U.S. attacks on Iranian nuclear sites. Trump claimed Israel had turned back its warplanes at his urging, boasting: “It was my great honor to Destroy All Nuclear facilities & capability, and then, STOP THE WAR!”

Neither Israel nor Iran disputed Washington’s role in the truce, but the paper highlighted doubts about its durability. Talks over Iran’s nuclear future have since broken down, and while US intelligence assessed the bombings badly damaged Iran’s most advanced enrichment site, experts warn Tehran could resume uranium production elsewhere.

India and Pakistan

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi has made it unequivocally clear to United States President Donald Trump that the ceasefire between India and Pakistan following a four-day conflict in May was the result of direct talks between the two militaries, not US mediation, according to a senior diplomat in New Delhi.

“PM Modi told President Trump clearly that during this period, there was no talk at any stage on subjects like India-US trade deal or US mediation between India and Pakistan,” Indian Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri said.

He added, “Talks for ceasing military action happened directly between India and Pakistan through existing military channels, and on the insistence of Pakistan. Prime Minister Modi emphasised that India has not accepted mediation in the past and will never do.”

The phone conversation came at Trump’s insistence, after the two leaders could not meet on the sidelines of the G7 summit in Canada, where Modi was a guest. The call lasted 35 minutes.

The backdrop of this ceasefire dates to escalating tensions along the Line of Control in Kashmir in May 2025. Following the April 22 Pahalgam terror attack that killed 26 civilians, India launched Operation Sindoor.

On May 10, Pakistan’s Director General of Military Operations called his Indian counterpart, and the two sides declared a ceasefire the same day.

Donald Trump, however, has repeatedly claimed credit for the truce. He has insisted that his mediation brought New Delhi and Islamabad to the table and has even claimed to have prevented a “nuclear war.” India has consistently rejected this account, emphasising that the ceasefire was strictly a bilateral decision.

As The Independent reported, Trump offered to mediate almost immediately, promising to help find a “solution” to the Kashmir dispute. Pakistan welcomed the idea, with officials stating: “We also appreciate President Trump’s expressed willingness to support efforts aimed at the resolution of the Jammu and Kashmir dispute.” At one point, Islamabad even floated the idea of nominating him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

India’s response was far more guarded. Officials insisted Kashmir was an internal matter. Major General Rameshwar Roy, a retired Indian Army officer, called Trump’s offer “irrelevant and intrusive,” noting the ceasefire was “a bilateral agreement” with no US involvement. In June, Misri reiterated Modi’s position that there would be “no US mediation between India and Pakistan.”

The New York Times highlighted the contrasting narratives. India maintained that Pakistan came to the negotiating table under pressure from India’s military response, while Pakistan credited Trump with “helping to end the hostilities.”

The disagreement also underscored existing strains in US-India relations, which were being tested by Trump’s escalating trade disputes. Pakistan, despite expressing gratitude, was hit with 19 per cent US tariffs, while India faced a 50 per cent levy.

In May, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar told Al Jazeera that Washington did not mediate the ceasefire and that Islamabad acted independently.

Also Read: Trump's trade adviser Peter Navarro reminds India of America’s exorbitant privilege & diktats

Thailand and Cambodia

In July, border clashes between Thailand and Cambodia spiraled into some of the bloodiest violence in decades, leaving at least 42 dead and forcing more than 300,000 from their homes.

Trump said he jumped in by calling both leaders directly, warning that trade talks with Washington would collapse unless they agreed to halt the fighting.

On July 28, a truce was announced after meetings in Malaysia. “They will hopefully get along for many years to come,” Trump said. Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Manet praised his “extraordinary statesmanship” and even nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize.

As reported by The Independent, Trump claimed to have used tariffs as leverage, threatening to derail trade deals if the hostilities continued. But the paper noted there was “no evidence the president personally negotiated” the agreement. The ceasefire, they added, has already been violated multiple times.

According to The New York Times, the ceasefire came after talks organised by both Malaysian and American officials. While the shooting stopped, critics pointed out that Trump’s intervention did nothing to resolve the deeper disputes fueling the conflict.

Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo

The conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo has burned for more than three decades, driven by militia violence, ethnic rivalries, and competition over vast reserves of gold, copper and lithium.

In late June, the United States stepped in with a high-profile attempt at brokering peace.

On June 27, the foreign ministers of Rwanda and Congo flew to Washington to sign a peace deal at the White House. Flanked by Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and delegates from both countries, Donald Trump declared the agreement “a glorious triumph.”

The accord included provisions for US companies to invest in Congo’s mineral wealth, a clause that critics quickly seized on as evidence of America’s self-interest.

Congolese President Félix Tshisekedi, however, publicly claimed the “diplomatic success” as his own. The New York Times reported that Qatar also played a key role in shaping the deal, which was intended as a step toward a more comprehensive peace agreement.

Trump had been previewing the breakthrough days earlier. On June 20, in a sprawling Truth Social post, he wrote: “This is a Great Day for Africa and, quite frankly, a Great Day for the World! I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize for this.”

He went on to complain that he had not been recognised for “stopping” wars between India and Pakistan, Serbia and Kosovo, Egypt and Ethiopia, or for “doing” the Abraham Accords in the Middle East.

“No, I won’t get a Nobel Peace Prize no matter what I do, including Russia/Ukraine, and Israel/Iran, whatever those outcomes may be, but the people know, and that’s all that matters to me!” he added.

Foreign policy experts described the Washington agreement as significant but fragile, part of a long pattern of broken contracts between Kigali and Kinshasa.

Their caution proved justified. Within weeks, the main rebel group in eastern Congo, M23, backed by Rwanda, threatened to renege, accusing the Congolese army of violating the terms.

Fighting resumed, leaving the truce in tatters and underscoring just how distant a lasting settlement remains.

Armenia and Azerbaijan

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the world’s most persistent. It first erupted after the collapse of the Soviet Union, flared into a war in the 1990s, and reignited in 2020. By 2023, Azerbaijan had seized full control of the disputed enclave.

On August 8, Donald Trump hosted the leaders of both countries at the White House, where they signed a US-brokered declaration to reopen transport routes across the South Caucasus. The deal also granted Washington development rights to a new transit corridor linking Azerbaijan to its exclave of Nakhchivan, which the White House dubbed the “Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity.”

Trump called the naming of the project “a great honor,” adding at the ceremony: “It’s a long time – 35 years – they fought and now they’re friends, and they’re going to be friends for a long time.”

The New York Times described the signing as “not a peace deal” but an incremental step, the first formal commitment since the late 1980s, when Soviet decline triggered inter-ethnic strife in the Caucasus.

Both leaders praised Trump for stepping into a conflict long mediated by Russia, which has since turned its focus to Ukraine. Analysts also noted that the corridor project could be an economic game changer, better linking Europe with Azerbaijan and Central Asia, while also cementing US influence in a region where Moscow’s sway has weakened.

But deep divisions remain. Azerbaijan continues to occupy parts of Armenia and insists Yerevan amend its constitution to erase references to Nagorno-Karabakh.

The border between the two countries is still closed, diplomatic ties remain frozen, and the terms for opening the Trump Route are uncertain. For all the White House pomp, the underlying disputes remain unresolved.

Egypt and Ethiopia

The Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) on the Nile has been one of Africa’s most contentious diplomatic battles for more than a decade. Egypt fears the massive hydroelectric project could choke off the river that supplies 90 of its water, while Ethiopia insists it is vital for development and energy.

After 12 years of talks, Egypt’s Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty admitted on June 29 that negotiations had collapsed. Just days later, Ethiopia announced the GERD was complete, with an official opening scheduled. Although fears of a full-scale war have not materialised, the standoff remains unresolved.

Donald Trump made the dispute a personal cause. At a White House meeting on July 14, he openly sided with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, declaring: “It would be pretty incredible if Egypt’s water source were to be taken away.”

He promised the United States was “going to have that solved very quickly.” Cairo welcomed the intervention, with Sisi saying Egypt appreciated Trump’s “keenness on reaching a just agreement” and praised his “vision of establishing just peace, security, and stability.”

But Ethiopian officials warned that Trump’s comments risked inflaming tensions and undermining their country’s right to use its own natural resources. Experts stressed that whatever progress has been made is largely the result of multilateral talks, not Trump’s diplomacy.

The New York Times noted that Trump’s “diplomacy has done little to resolve the dispute.” Back in 2020, he even remarked that Egypt had threatened to “blow up” the dam. Years later, Ethiopia has completed the project, Egypt and Sudan remain staunchly opposed, and a permanent settlement looks as elusive as ever.

Serbia and Kosovo

As per The Independent, Trump’s final “war” claim focuses on Serbia and Kosovo.

At a June 27 Oval Office press conference, he declared that the two Balkan neighbours were “on the brink of war” until his administration stepped in. He said a “friend in Serbia” had warned him, “we’re going to go to war again” with Kosovo.

According to Trump, he threatened trade sanctions and “was able to stop it.”

Kosovo’s president, Vjosa Osmani, backed that account, saying on July 10 that Trump had prevented a potential escalation “from Serbia.” But Serbian President Aleksandar Vucic flatly rejected the narrative, insisting two days later that a conflict with Kosovo “does not even occur to us.”

The truth is less clear-cut. Tensions between Serbia and Kosovo have lingered since the bloody 1998–1999 war, which ended with NATO intervention. The situation has remained uneasy since Kosovo declared independence in 2008, though open conflict has largely been avoided.

Trump can point to his 2020 achievement, when the US brokered a pact between the two sides to normalise economic ties. In this latest case, however, it is hard to determine whether his actions averted a genuine crisis or exaggerated a routine diplomatic flare-up.

So, did Trump really “stop” six or seven wars?

Trump’s administration played a role in brokering or pausing hostilities in several conflicts. His favourite tool, threats of tariffs or sanctions, sometimes jolted adversaries into talking. In Cambodia and Thailand, that arguably worked. In Israel and Iran, his strikes forced a ceasefire. In Rwanda and Congo, the US was one of several mediators.

But in almost every case, the peace was temporary, partial or disputed. India rejected his role entirely. Ethiopia dismissed his interference. Armenia and Azerbaijan remain locked in conflict. The Congo deal has already frayed. Even the Israel–Iran truce hangs by a thread.

And then there’s the question of what counts as a “war.” Some of these were escalations or skirmishes, not full-scale wars. Others were diplomatic disputes, not armed conflict.