Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott

It’s worth repeating that President Trump pulled off a major feat yesterday: securing the release of Israeli hostages and and end to the fighting - at least for now - in Gaza.

But as Air Force One lifted off from the Middle East, his “historic dawn of a new Middle East” was already colliding with a far messier reality on the ground—one that suggests the hardest part of ending this war hasn’t even begun.

Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my work, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The cracks appeared before Trump left Jerusalem. While he was still addressing the Knesset, Defense Minister Israel Katz was already signaling what would come next. Hamas had released only four bodies of deceased hostages instead of the 28 promised under the deal. “Each delay or intentional avoidance will be considered a blunt violation of the agreement and will be answered accordingly,” Katz posted on X.

By Tuesday, Israel made good on that threat—cutting humanitarian aid trucks to Gaza by half, from 600 to 300 daily, until Hamas complied.

While Trump celebrated in Egypt, Hamas fighters were moving back into neighborhoods Israeli forces had vacated, deploying hundreds of security personnel. By evening, they made their message clear: in a Gaza City square, Hamas gunmen dragged seven men—hands tied behind their backs—to their knees and shot them in front of dozens of onlookers, accusing them of collaborating with Israel.

Hamas wasn’t fading quietly. They were reasserting control, enforcing authority through violence, and proving that whatever Trump’s plan said about disarmament, they considered themselves very much armed and in charge.

Trump’s response was characteristically bombastic but strategically vague: “They will disarm or we will disarm them. Got it? And it’ll happen quickly and perhaps violently,” he declared.

The gap between Trump’s rhetoric and ground-level reality runs through nearly every element of his plan. The international stabilization force meant to secure Gaza? Still theoretical—no clarity on contributors, funding, or mandate. The interim Palestinian governing committee? Undefined and contentious, with the Palestinian Authority excluded pending vague “reforms.” The $7 billion reconstruction fund? No mechanism for how it will be distributed or monitored. The declaration Trump signed in Egypt with more than a dozen world leaders to great fanfare was more of a statement of principles than a plan.

Trump achieved something significant but incomplete: he used his leverage with Netanyahu to stop the immediate bloodshed and bring hostages home. That’s real—and it matters enormously to the families reunited and to Palestinians no longer being bombed daily.

But the deeper issues remain untouched. Hamas still controls Gaza’s streets. Israel hasn’t abandoned its expansionist aims. The question of Palestinian self-determination is unresolved. And the only forces operating in Gaza remain the same two—Hamas and the IDF—that created this catastrophe in the first place.

Netanyahu knows this better than anyone. While Trump declared victory, Netanyahu told Israelis the war “is not over” and is already laying the groundwork for renewed conflict—waiting for the next pretext: another Hamas attack, weapons-smuggling accusations, aid disputes, or his own political needs. His coalition includes extremists who want to resettle Gaza and reject any Palestinian statehood.

Trump, for his part, showed little interest in the broader political horizon. When pressed aboard Air Force One, he brushed off the question: “We’re talking about rebuilding Gaza. I’m not talking about single state or double state or two state,” he said. “A lot of people like the one-state solution, some people like the two-state solution. We’ll have to see.”

It was revealing. Moments earlier he had declared “the end of the age of terror and death” and “a historic dawn of a new Middle East.” Yet when asked about the central political question that would determine whether that new Middle East ever materializes, his answer was essentially: not my problem.

Getting the hostages home was tangible and headline-grabbing. The slow, grinding work of governance, reconstruction, and political reconciliation is a far less glamorous slog, but it’s what will decide whether Trump’s “historic” moment endures or fades.

President Trump got his victory lap and the headlines. He deserved them. What’s unclear is whether he’ll do the sustained, unglamorous work to turn a tactical win into strategic transformation. Because right now, despite the pageantry in Jerusalem and Egypt, the banners and declarations, the evidence suggests we’re in an intermission—waiting to see whether the next act brings peace or just another round of the same devastating conflict.

Dany and I cover that, and more. Watch and let us know what you think.

Thank you David Galinsky, Karen McHugh, Sloane, Hava Salita, Paul k, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you couldn’t catch Hot Take Happy Hour with me and Danielle Pletka, here is the recording. Dany will have her own piece on the deal and I have some of her previous work in the show notes below. Here is my take:

After watching Trump’s first-term Middle East policy veer between genius and chaos, often within the same week, I approached his recent Gaza diplomacy with the skepticism of someone who’s covered enough peace processes to know how spectacularly they can fail. But credit where it’s due: Trump did what Joe Biden couldn’t and countless diplomats before him tried and failed to do.

Now comes the part where I rain on the parade a bit. Because calling this “everlasting peace” - as Trump did on Truth Social Thursday - is like declaring mission accomplished on an aircraft carrier before the war actually ends. The hostages aren’t home yet. Hamas still controls Gaza. And Netanyahu’s far-right coalition is already talking about resuming the fight once Israel’s captives are freed.

The real test of Trump’s diplomacy doesn’t come this weekend during the signing ceremony photo op he’s planning in Egypt. It comes in the weeks and months after, when he’ll need to do something that’s never been his strong suit: stay engaged in the unglamorous work of implementation.

The art of the Middle East deal

Here’s what Trump got right - and it’s worth acknowledging because it worked.

First, he let himself be flattered into engagement. At the UN General Assembly last month, Trump convened Arab and Muslim leaders in what he later called his “most important meeting” at the UN. There, with the UAE organizing and leaders from Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and others present, Trump unveiled his 20-point plan. Qatar’s emir told him: “We count on you and your leadership to end this war.” The prospect of chairing a “Board of Peace” overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction appealed to Trump’s construction-mogul instincts. And with his Ukraine peace efforts stalling, that elusive Nobel suddenly seemed within reach.

But flattery alone doesn’t move Benjamin Netanyahu. What changed the dynamic was Qatar - and Trump’s willingness to actually confront an ally.

On September 9, Israel unilaterally bombed Doha, targeting Hamas negotiators without consulting Washington. The strike failed to kill its targets but succeeded in enraging Qatar, host to the largest US military base in the Middle East and making Gulf states fear they could be next. Trump was furious. He forced Netanyahu to call Qatar’s prime minister during their White House meeting and read a formal apology. Then Trump issued an extraordinary executive order declaring any future attack on Qatar would be treated as an attack on the United States.

Read that again. Trump essentially put an American security guarantee on an Arab state to protect it from Israel. That’s not the move of someone going through the motions.

The message to Netanyahu was unmistakable: there were limits to American support. Trump told Fox News he had warned the Israeli prime minister that “Israel cannot fight the world,” adding pointedly, “And he understands that very well.”

That leverage proved crucial. Trump also got Netanyahu to accept terms ruling out West Bank annexation and Palestinian displacement - positions the prime minister had previously rejected. When combined with the devastating American and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities over the summer, which set Tehran’s program back years and weakened its ability to support Hamas, the pieces fell into place.

The Arab states, seeing genuine American commitment and a pathway toward Palestinian statehood, put unprecedented pressure on Hamas. With Gazans exhausted by two years of war and blaming Hamas for their misery, and with Trump making clear Israel would resume operations with his “full backing” if Hamas rejected the deal, the militant group had few cards left to play.

Here’s what Trump’s proclamation glosses over: Almost nothing has actually been resolved.

Phase one calls for Israel to cease fire, Hamas to release all hostages within 72 hours, Israel to partially withdraw troops and release Palestinian prisoners, and humanitarian aid to flood Gaza. If that happens - and it’s still an if - it will be momentous. Hostage families reunited. Starving Gazans fed. The killing stopped, at least temporarily.

Everything else has been kicked down the road. Who governs Gaza after Hamas? How does Hamas disarm, and who monitors it? What role does the Palestinian Authority play? When do Israeli troops fully withdraw? What does a “credible pathway” to Palestinian statehood actually mean?

On these questions, the parties have fundamentally different understandings of what they agreed to. Hamas believes Israeli withdrawal is guaranteed once hostages are released. Israel says withdrawal depends on “milestones linked to demilitarization” - with no timeline. Netanyahu told hostage families Sunday that “as long as the last hostage has not returned, we will not move forward on any other point,” and that neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority would govern Gaza. “Israel will be responsible for and involved in the disarmament of Gaza,” he said.

Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich was even blunter, saying Israel has a responsibility to “continue to strive with all its might for the true eradication of Hamas” after the captives are released. Translation, at least in Israel’s eyes: there is no phase two.

Hamas, meanwhile, won’t disarm unless there’s a permanent end to the war and complete Israeli withdrawal - conditions not in Trump’s plan. Senior Hamas leaders have said they received guarantees from Trump that Israel won’t resume bombing after hostages are freed, but Israeli officials have said no such thing publicly.

We’ve been here before. Earlier this year, Israel and Hamas agreed to a 60-day ceasefire with hostage releases. It collapsed when Israel resumed operations. The risk now is even greater because once Hamas releases all living hostages, it loses its primary leverage. Netanyahu, facing pressure from his far-right coalition to continue the war, may find a pretext to restart operations.

Why Trump can’t declare victory and go home

The only thing preventing that outcome is sustained American pressure. And here’s where my skepticism kicks in.

Trump projected confidence Thursday, saying “we ended the war in Gaza” and created “a lasting peace, hopefully.” But when asked whether there are guarantees Hamas would disarm and Israel wouldn’t return to bombing, Trump revealed the fragility: “First thing we’re doing is getting our hostages back. After that, we’ll see.”

That’s not reassuring. Trump needs to engaged. Without that, his deal is as shaky as the ones before it.

Trump plans to travel to Egypt for a signing ceremony once hostages are released, probably Monday or Tuesday. It will be cinematic - the kind of moment that makes history books and Nobel Prize citations. But a signing ceremony doesn’t create peace. It creates a photo op.

The question is whether Trump will stay engaged after the immediate crisis passes. That means continued pressure on Netanyahu to withdraw troops, allow reconstruction, and engage seriously with questions about Gaza’s future governance. It means working with Arab states who are demanding a UN Security Council mandate for any international stabilization force and insisting Gaza and the West Bank be treated as one political entity leading toward Palestinian statehood. It means ensuring humanitarian aid continues flowing and that Gazans - tens of thousands of whom are starving, homeless, and living in ruins - can begin rebuilding shattered lives.

These are unglamorous, grinding diplomatic tasks without clear victories or viral moments. They require patience, persistence, and sustained high-level engagement - qualities not typically associated with Trump’s approach to foreign policy.

The opportunity Trump created

But here’s the thing - and I say this as someone who spends more time criticizing Trump than praising him- if he can pull this off, it won’t just be historic. It will fundamentally reshape the region in ways that could last a generation.

Israel’s military position is stronger than it’s been in decades. Iran is weakened. Hezbollah is gutted. Hamas is decimated. Syria’s Assad regime has fallen. The Abraham Accords demonstrated unprecedented Arab acceptance of Israel. Trump inherited favorable conditions; his contribution was forcing both sides to capitalize on them rather than letting the moment slip away.

What makes Trump uniquely positioned for this moment is his immunity to conventional political constraints. He can demand concessions from Israel without being labeled anti-Semitic. He can negotiate with Arab states his Republican base once viewed with suspicion. He can push allies in ways traditional diplomacy can’t because his willingness to walk away - and be genuinely unpredictable about it - creates leverage others simply don’t have.

Trump also understands what Biden never quite grasped: that diplomacy means nothing if it’s not backed by the credible threat of force. Biden let domestic politics influence his handling of Israel in ultimately counterproductive ways, while Trump knew instinctively that Israel needed to win militarily before diplomacy could succeed. As former Israeli Air and Missile Defense commander Ran Kochav put it: “Trump forced a plan on both Netanyahu and Hamas that neither of them really wanted.”

That’s real power. The question is whether Trump will use it to see this through.

Countless Israelis and Gazans spent Thursday celebrating massive progress toward ending their two-year nightmare. They deserve to celebrate. Hostage families deserve hope. Starving Gazans deserve relief.

But until the question of who governs Gaza is resolved, the war isn’t over and peace will remain elusive.

Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my approach to foreign affairs journalism, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

An A for effort

Now, let’s talk about the elephant in the room: Trump desperately wants that Nobel Peace Prize. And I mean desperately.

He regularly claims to have ended “six or seven wars” since returning to office, a running tally that’s become something of a parlor game among foreign diplomats.

And here’s the thing: I’ll give Trump an A for effort. His willingness to play hardball with allies and adversaries alike has produced results traditional diplomacy couldn’t. He got both sides talking when everyone else had given up. He applied pressure Biden couldn’t or wouldn’t. He leveraged relationships, used military strikes strategically, and bound himself personally to the outcome. That’s real diplomacy, however unconventional.

Beyond Gaza, Trump has thrown himself into conflicts around the world – helping to mediate ceasefires between India and Pakistan, brokering talks between Armenia and Azerbaijan, pushing Congo and Rwanda toward peace negotiations, and most notably, attempting to end the war in Ukraine with that high-stakes summit with Putin in Alaska. Some of these efforts have produced tangible results, others remain works in progress, and a few (looking at you, Egypt-Ethiopia water dispute) were barely conflicts to begin with. But the sheer ambition of trying to solve multiple intractable conflicts simultaneously - however transparently motivated by Nobel dreams - represents a level of presidential engagement in global peace efforts we haven’t seen in years. That’s not nothing.

But the Nobel isn’t a participation trophy for good intentions or dramatic gestures. It’s recognition of sustained achievement that makes the world more peaceful, more stable, more united. You get it for lasting peace. And you definitely don’t get it while simultaneously threatening to seize Greenland from Denmark bullying allies on trade, withdrawing from multinational treaties and generally dividing the world into winners and losers of Trump’s transactional diplomacy. You can’t separate one diplomatic achievement from a broader foreign policy that treats alliances like protection rackets and international cooperation like a sucker’s game.

Should he get the Nobel someday? If this deal actually ends the war, if Hamas disarms, if Gaza rebuilds, if Palestinian statehood becomes reality? If this Gaza deal holds - and it’s a big if - Trump will have accomplished something significant worthy of the Nobel

Right now, Trump has brokered a ceasefire. That matters. That’s worth celebrating. But “everlasting peace” requires staying engaged long after the cameras leave, long after the Nobel announcement passes, long after the thrill of the deal fades.

Show Notes

Elise’s piece: The Lost Plot of October 7 (Substack, Oct. 7, 2025)

Dany’s piece: WTH: Two years after October 7, there is no path to peace (Substack, Oct. 6, 2025)

Can Palestinian Politics Be Revived? (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Sept. 24, 2025)

Hamas charter

RFK on autism (Oct 9, 2025 - trust me, you have to watch it to believe it)

Thank you David Galinsky, Candace Head-Dylla, Courtneye, lindaloo, Sloane, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Hot Takes Happy Hour with myself and Danielle Pletka will take place FRIDAY at 4p in observation of Yom Kippur. May all those who celebrate have an easy and peaceful fast.

There was so much news this week - Friday’s discussion should be next level!

This week’s meeting at Quantico—and the remarks from both President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the assembled generals and admirals—drew shock, condemnation, some agreement, and plenty of memes. Most importantly, it raised critical questions about whether the U.S. military under Trump and Hegseth will be ready to fulfill its mission, and whether future generations, particularly women, will continue to serve. Few journalists can cut through the noise to focus on what truly matters like Barbara Starr. As I said yesterday, Barbara’s reporting is sharp, thoughtful, and essential—and this conversation was no exception. If you weren’t able to watch live, check out the recording.

Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my foreign policy analysis and conversations with expert guests, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

SHOW NOTES:

Barbara’s piece: Are you ready for a life-changing week ahead? (Substack, Sept. 27, 2005)

Secretary Pete Hegseth’s Convocation, the Warrior Ethos, and Our Military’s Covenant with American Society (HR McMaster’s Substack, Sept. 30, 2025)

Trump Tells Generals the Military Will Be Used to Fight ‘Enemy Within’ (Wall Street Journal, Sept. 30, 2025)

Hegseth’s Quantico Farce: Terrifying, or Oddly Reassuring? (The Nation, Oct. 1, 2025)

Female veterans slam Hegseth’s questioning of their combat fitness (Axios, Sept. 30, 2025)

Thank you Liz O’Connor, David Galinsky, Lucky, Karen McHugh, Lana, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

PROGRAMMING NOTE: Join me TODAY at NOON for a Substack live with Barbara Starr, former CNN Pentagon correspondent and current USC Annenberg fellow. We’ll discuss the unprecedented meeting between President Trump, Pete Hegseth, and American military generals, Hegseth’s proposed “warrior ethos” culture, the president’s suggestion to use American cities as military training grounds, and the latest Pentagon restrictions on journalists. Barbara’s analysis is sharp, thoughtful, and essential—don’t miss it.

If you missed my conversation with Aaron David Miller, the recording is essential viewing. Aaron joined us for his first Substack Live—and if I have anything to say about it, there will be many more. Drawing on decades advising American presidents and Secretaries of State as a Mideast peace negotiator, Aaron examined Trump’s plan for Gaza and its implications for Israel and the Palestinians. We discussed Netanyahu’s broader calculations, Israel’s missed opportunities, and whether President Trump is committed to Mideast peace for the long haul.

Cosmopolitics is a reader-supported publication. If you value my foreign policy analysis and conversations with leading experts, please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

SHOW NOTES:

Elise’s piece: Trump’s plan to end the Gaza war (The Preamble, Sept 30, 2025)

President Trump’s Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict

Full text of Trump, Netanyahu statements on deal to end Gaza war

Ex-State Department negotiator talks about the global push for Palestinian statehood (NPR, Sept. 23, 2025)

Join Aaron next Tuesday for a virtual event October 7th Two Years On: An Assessment and dont’ forget to check out his podcast: Carnegie Connects

Thank you Noble Blend, Martin Horsford, Lana, Andrew Goldstein, Janice Lynch, and many others for tuning into my live video with Aaron David Miller Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thanks for joining Danielle Pletka and I for our special coverage of the UN General Assembly. If you didn’t have a chance to watch us live yesterday, here is the video and here is the video of our UNGA show on Tuesday. We plan to do more special editions of Hot Takes Happy Hour for big and breaking stories. Let us know what you want to hear about.

I’m wrapping up a week in New York for the opening of the United Nations General Assembly. UNGA, as it is not-so-affectionately know, has been called the diplomatic equivalent of speed dating - lots of meetings, little substance. But this week’s gathering revealed something more nuanced about how the international community has adapted to Donald Trump’s return to power: they’ve learned to separate the performance from the policy, and increasingly, they can live with both.

I met with a lot of diplomats this week in New York and found Trump’s combative speech to the General Assembly wasn’t the bombshell many expected. Diplomats have heard the routine before - the attacks on climate policy, the immigration rhetoric, the grievances about whatever. What matters more to them now is what happens in the bilateral meetings, the private conversations, and the concrete policy shifts that emerge from Trump’s mercurial decision-making process. And on that front, many are cautiously optimistic.

The price of access

Make no mistake: the current dynamic requires a level of diplomatic genuflection that makes many seasoned ambassadors uncomfortable. World leaders have spent much of the year learning how to appease Trump, understanding that embarrassing him publicly would be counterproductive. It’s the kind of careful choreography you’d expect around an unstable autocrat, not the leader of the free world.

This represents a fundamental shift in how international relations operate. Traditional diplomatic norms - the careful language, the multilateral consultations, the respect for institutional processes - have given way to a more transactional approach centered on personal relationships with one man. It’s undignified, and many diplomats privately bristle at having to navigate Trump’s ego alongside complex policy issues. But they’ve also discovered it can be surprisingly effective.

The key insight driving diplomatic strategy is brutally simple: Trump sets the tone, everyone needs him, and he knows it. This isn’t the Trump of 2017-2021, when world leaders thought they could manage or manipulate him. This is a more confident Trump who has consolidated power and demonstrated staying power. Resistance is futile; adaptation is essential.

Trade wars that aren’t

One area where diplomats express genuine relief is trade policy. Trump’s threats of universal tariffs and trade wars had many fearing a return to 1930s-style protectionism. While Trump has indeed imposed significant tariffs - including what he calls “major tariffs” on Brazil in response to their treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro- the damage has been more targeted than his campaign rhetoric suggested.

The reality is that Trump’s bark on trade has often proved worse than his bite, at least for allies willing to play the game on his terms. Countries have learned to offer symbolic victories—increased defense spending, energy purchases from the United States, diplomatic support on key issues—that allow Trump to claim wins while avoiding the kind of comprehensive trade war that would devastate the global economy.

The Ukraine surprise

Perhaps the most significant development for European diplomats has been Trump’s evolving position on Ukraine. His meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy this week marked a dramatic shift from earlier suggestions that Ukraine should cede territory for peace. Trump’s social media post declaring that Ukraine could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form” represented exactly the kind of strong American support that European allies had hoped for but hadn’t expected.

But here’s the catch: Trump’s history of policy reversals raises serious questions about whether this shift will hold. His statement that NATO can “do what they want” with American weapons suggests he may be stepping back from direct involvement while allowing others to escalate support. Which NATO ally will seriously plan long-term strategy around commitments that might reverse with Trump’s next social media post?

Middle East balancing act

On Gaza and the broader Middle East, Trump’s approach has earned grudging respect from Arab and Muslim leaders. His promise not to allow Israel to annex the West Bank addressed a key concern among regional partners, while his criticism of Israeli settlement expansion as “counterproductive” suggested a more balanced approach than many expected.

Trump’s emphasis on hostage releases and his pressure on both sides to reach a ceasefire deal has been welcomed by regional powers who see American engagement as essential to any sustainable resolution. While his methods may be unorthodox - including his apparent surprise at Israeli strikes in Qatar - the substantive positions he’s taking align with regional diplomatic priorities.

A pragmatic accommodation

What emerges from conversations with diplomats this week is a picture of pragmatic accommodation. They may not respect Trump’s methods or appreciate his treatment of multilateral institutions, but they can work with his positions on key issues. The theatrical elements of Trump’s presidency - the rambling speeches, the personal attacks, the institutional vandalism - are treated as background noise to be endured rather than engaged.

This represents a remarkable adaptation by the international community. Rather than fighting Trump’s approach to diplomacy, they’ve learned to work within it, discovering that beneath the chaos and spectacle, there are deals to be made and interests to be protected. It requires patience, flattery, and a willingness to endure public humiliation, but it can produce results. On the issues that matter most—trade relationships, Ukraine support, Middle East stability - Trump’s positions are within the bounds of what they can work with.

The concern, of course, is what this means for the broader international order. The normalization of Trump’s approach may have short-term benefits for specific countries, but it undermines the institutional frameworks that have underpinned global stability for decades. Diplomats understand this trade-off, but in a world where Trump controls American power, they’ve concluded that adaptation is preferable to isolation. The price of access may be high in terms of dignity and institutional norms, but the alternative - being shut out of American decision-making entirely—is worse.

This doesn’t mean they’re comfortable with the broader trajectory of American leadership. Many express private concerns about America’s democratic institutions, political polarization, and attacks on press freedom and political opponents. But in the immediate term, they’re focused on managing the relationship they have rather than longing for the one they wish they had. For now, diplomats are keeping their heads down and trying to plow ahead, making the best of a situation they didn’t choose but can’t avoid.

The world has learned to live with Trump. Whether it can thrive under his leadership remains an open question.

SHOW NOTES

At UN, amid jeers and cheers, Netanyahu says Israel ‘must finish the job’ against Hamas in Gaza (Associated Press, Sept. 25, 2025) Video of Netanyuahu’s address

‘Palestine Is Ours,’ Abbas Tells U.N. General Assembly (New York Times, Sept. 24, 2025) Video of Abbas’ address

Elise’s piece: “The hunt for a Palestinian Plan B (Cosmopolitics, Jan 26 2024)

Dany’s piece, Enough with the Gaza Famine Canard (National Review, Sept. 5, 2025) and The Pretend State of Palestine, (What the Hell is Going On podcast with Elliot Abrams) Sept. 11, 2025)

SU fraternity calls attack on Rosh Hashanah an ‘act of ignorance, intolerance and hatred’ (Syracuse.com, Sept. 25, 2025)

James Comey, Former FBI Director, Indicted After Pressure From Trump, (New York Times, Sept. 25, 2025)

Why More Adults Than Ever Are Being Diagnosed With Autism (Wall Street Journal, (May 25, 2025)

Trump statement at odds with Hegseth’s directive about press access to the Pentagon (USA Today, Sept 22, 2025)

Thank you David Galinsky, Los Gatos Sin Madrid, Lana, Gary Sorensen, lotta kuylenstjerna, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you weren’t able to watch Danielle Pletka and me live during our special UNGA Edition of Hot Takes Happy Hour, here is the recording. It was a good discussion about Trump’s speech to the UN General Assembly, the recognition of a Palestinian state by many countries at the French/Saudi summit and the whiplash on Ukraine.

Dany and I are back THURSDAY at 5:30 ET with our regular programming. We hope you will join us!

Show notes are at the end of this post. I will let Dany share her own thoughts on Trump speech, but here is MY take:

I thought it was ominous when Trump began his speech announcing his teleprompter had broken. After nearly an hour of his stream-of-consciousness, it became a perfect metaphor for Trump’s entire approach to global leadership: improvised, unfocused, and careening wildly off-script. Where previous presidents used the UN podium to articulate grand visions for international cooperation, Trump delivered what can only be described as a word salad—the kind of rambling, incoherent monologue that recalled Fidel Castro’s legendary marathon speeches to the General Assembly decades ago.

A stump speech that won’t die

This was not diplomacy. It was Trump’s standard campaign rally performance, complete with the same grievances, conspiracy theories, and applause lines he’s delivered at a hundred campaign stops. He wasn’t speaking as the leader of the free world addressing fellow heads of state—he was playing to an imaginary audience of MAGA supporters, seemingly oblivious to the diplomatic catastrophe unfolding in real time.

Trump has been giving the same performance for years: the complaints about broken institutions, the attacks on climate science as “the greatest con job ever,” the warnings about immigration destroying Western civilization. The message wasn’t broken by technical difficulties—it was broken by design.

Every year at the UN General Assembly, there’s a faint hope that Trump might rise to the occasion, that the weight of the office and the gravity of the moment might inspire him to deliver something worthy of America’s global leadership role. He never fails to disappoint. This speech was perhaps his most tone-deaf performance yet, a stunning abdication of American leadership at precisely the moment when the world needed to hear a coherent vision for international cooperation.

A missed opportunity

Trump wasn’t entirely wrong about the UN’s problems. The organization desperately needed what Danielle Pletka called a “reckoning”—a fundamental examination of its bureaucratic inefficiencies, gridlocked Security Council, and inability to effectively address global crises. This was Trump’s moment to offer serious reform proposals, to challenge the international community with concrete plans for making multilateral institutions work in the 21st century.

Instead, he delivered complaints about a broken escalator, a malfunctioning teleprompter and his anger over not being awarded a contract decades ago to renovate the United Nations headquarters - as if these were the real obstacles to world peace. His criticism boiled down to “empty words don’t solve wars”—but he offered no alternative framework, no innovative mechanisms for collective action, no vision for how international cooperation might actually function. It was a spectacular waste of American soft power and moral authority.

Ambassador Mike Waltz, confirmed by the Senate on the eve of Trump’s speech, now has the unenviable job of picking up where Trump left off—trying to translate incoherent rambling into actual diplomatic strategy. Waltz inherits a mission that should have been clearly defined by presidential leadership but instead must be reverse-engineered from a president’s stream-of-consciousness complaints about UN infrastructure.

Trump’s casual contempt for America’s traditional allies - “Your countries are going to hell” - bordered on diplomatic suicide. He accused European allies of being “invaded by a force of illegal aliens like nobody’s ever seen before” and warned that “immigration and their suicidal energy ideas will be the death of Western Europe.”

This wasn’t tough love or constructive criticism—it was the kind of condescending lecture that destroys relationships and undermines decades of alliance-building. At a time when American influence at the UN is already diminished by funding cuts, an eight-month ambassadorial vacancy, and the perception that the U.S. sides with Russia over Ukraine and protects Israel in Gaza regardless of consequences, Trump’s speech is only likely to deepen America’s diplomatic isolation.

The evidence of declining American influence was on full display this week, as moved forward with recognizing Palestinian statehood despite American opposition. These aren’t adversaries thumbing their noses at Washington—these are America’s closest allies concluding they can no longer wait for coherent U.S. leadership on critical international issues.

China, Russia, and Qatar were quietly filling the leadership vacuum America has created. These autocratic regimes are reshaping UN institutions to their advantage, offering funding and hosting arrangements that come with their own political strings attached. Trump’s speech did nothing to counter this trend—if anything, it accelerated it by demonstrating that America under his leadership is more interested in grievance politics than global governance.

Ukraine whiplash

Trump’s handling of Ukraine policy perfectly encapsulated his erratic approach. During his address, he offered no new strategy beyond threatening tariffs on Russia while berating European allies. But hours later, after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Trump completely reversed course, posting on social media that Ukraine could “fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form.”

When asked if NATO countries should shoot down Russian aircraft entering their airspace, Trump said “yes” but added that U.S. support would depend on “the circumstance.”

It’s exactly the position NATO allies and President Zelensky were waiting for. But will NATO allies will take Trump seriously or rely on American backing after witnessing such policy volatility? It is hard for members of the alliance to formulate strategies when the American president might change his position based on his next social media post

The message is clear

Trump was indeed more confident on the world stage than during his first term, clearly seeking his Nobel Prize as a global peacemaker while projecting American power and strength. He may be stronger in his convictions. But world leaders who once laughed at his bombast now sit in uncomfortable silence, concerned about where America is heading with a leader who fundamentally doesn’t understand the weight of his office.

Cosmopolitics by Elise Labott is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

The teleprompter may have been broken, but the message came through with painful clarity: The world needed American leadership. Instead, it got a word salad that would have made Castro proud, delivered by a president who never grasped that the UN podium isn’t just another campaign stop. The consequences of this diplomatic malpractice will outlast Trump’s presidency, as allies hedge their bets and adversaries fill the vacuum left by America’s retreat from serious global engagement.

SHOW NOTES

Dany’s pieces: #WTH The Pretend “State of Palestine” (Substack, Sept. 22, 2025) and The U.N. Deserves a Trumpian Reckoning w/ Brett Schaefer (National Review, Sept 23, 2025)

Elise’s piece: “A Gesture of Despair”: The Push for Palestinian Statehood(Preamble, Sept 24, 2025)

Trump tells world leaders their countries are ‘going to hell’ in combative UN speech (Reuters, Sept. 23, 2025)

Trump Unloads on UN but Does Not Clarify Future US Engagement (AEI, Sept. 23, 2025)

A blunt, fearful rant: Trump’s UN speech left presidential norms in the dust (The Guardian, Sept. 23, 2025)

Donald Trump post on Ukraine (Truth Social, Sept. 23, 2025)

Thank you David Galinsky, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, shonanbrioche, Endicott Mongoloid, Larissa, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

If you didn’t get a chance to catch this week’s Hot Takes Happy Hour live show, Danielle Pletka and I hope you will watch the recording.

The main takeaway here is simple: if Charlie Kirk's murder has taught us anything, it's that we must stop demonizing one another simply because we disagree. People who hold beliefs different from ours are not bad people. Period. We need to make space for those with different viewpoints - we don't need to agree with them, but they may teach us something. Whether you agreed with Charlie or not, Dany pointed out that he didn’t let his supporters trash those who opposed his views and came to challenge him.

There's been considerable concern about free speech following Jimmy Kimmel's suspension by ABC. Dany and I agree his comments were ill-timed, insensitive, and in poor taste. They weren't funny. We also agree that he has the right under the First Amendment to say them. When the government attempts to censor free speech through intimidation or regulatory pressure, it crosses a line that is distinctly un-American.

Let us know what you think in the comments. And join us next week for coverage of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Dany and I will be discussing President Trump's speech and those of other world leaders, as well as the hot button issues being debated - Gaza, Iran, and Ukraine.

Let us know what you think in the comments. And joint us next week for coverage of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Dany and I will be discussing President Trump’s speech and that of other world leaders, as well as the issues being discussed like Israel, Iran and Ukraine.

SHOW NOTES

Pam Bondi Needs a Free Speech Tutorial (Editorial Board, WSJ, Sept. 16, 2025)

Pam Bondi’s First Amendment Follies (Editorial Board, National Review, September 17, 2025)

Bondi Prompts Broad Backlash After Saying She’ll Target ‘Hate Speech’, New York Times, Sept. 16, 2025

After Kirk’s killing, a growing conservative campaign seeks to get his critics ostracized or fired, PBS, Sep 15, 2025 11:41 AM EDT

JD Vance attacks Europe over free speech and migration, BBC, Feb 15 2025

McCain Counters Obama ‘Arab’ Question (Associated Press, Oct 11, 2008)

The Dividing Line ( Erick Erickson Substack, Sept 16, 2025

Trump, allies seek to punish speech they dislike following Kirk killing, Washington Post, Sept 18, 2025

Ronald Reagan on Constitution, Reagan Foundation

FIRE statement on FCC threat to revoke ABC broadcast license over Jimmy Kimmel remarks about Charlie Kirk , September 18, 2025

Why Kirk Assassination Is a Warning to the Left, New York Times, Sept 16, 2025

Advice for Liberals (Jim VandeHei, Axios, Sept 17, 2025)

and if you didn’t see my last Cosmopolitics post, Late night with Viktor Orban, please check it out!

Thank you BY GLENN KESSLER, Kiwi Rebel, David Galinsky, Wendy Bowis, Mark Kimmitt, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

For those who missed my conversation with Barbara Starr, I highly recommend giving it a listen. Barbara's Pentagon reporting and deep knowledge of America's armed forces ranks among the finest in journalism, and her incisive analysis of the Trump administration's escalating operations against drug cartels in the Caribbean, the deployment of National Guard forces to American cities, and the recent rebranding of the Defense Department as the Department of War is both sharp and sobering. She also had some good insights on Russia’s recent testing of NATO by sending drones to Poland and Israel’s audacious strike in Qatar. (More on that tomorrow)

I look forward to welcoming Barbara back on Cosmopolitics soon. In the meantime, please subscribe to Barbarastarrreports for more of her exceptional reporting.

I want to address yesterday’s senseless murder of Charlie Kirk. While I disagreed with his views on virtually everythink, I respected his commitment to engaging young people in political discourse—something I'm passionate about myself. His willingness to debate those with opposing views, exemplified by his "Prove Me Wrong" college tour, should be celebrated, not silenced through violence. He was a devoted husband and father whose family deserved to have him with them.

This alarming mainstreaming of political violence in America is rooted in an even more troubling phenomenon: the systematic dehumanization of those who think differently than we do. We've moved beyond simply challenging ideas we oppose to questioning the basic worth and dignity of those who hold them. The moment we start viewing political adversaries as mortal enemies rather than fellow Americans, when we characterize whole groups as dangerous threats to our way of life, when we treat people as collateral damage in our political battles, we create the conditions where violence seems not only justified but necessary.

Twenty-four years ago on September 11th, Americans made a solemn promise to stand united in the face of terror. In those dark days, we briefly rediscovered a fundamental truth: that whatever divides us politically pales in comparison to what we risk losing if we let violence and hatred destroy the democratic ideals and common bonds that make us one nation.

For me, this isn’t rhetoric. I try to live by this principle and keep my critiques to the policies themselves. This is precisely why my friendship with Danielle Pletka means so much to me. Though we frequently disagree on policy issues, we share an unwavering commitment to debating our differences with the goal of mutual understanding while never losing sight of our shared humanity. This is the spirit behind our weekly Hot Takes Happy Hour—making sense of our complex world together through friendship, respect, and genuine dialogue. On that note, this week's Hot Takes will take place this Friday at 4 PM. We hope to see you there.

Thank you Al Pessin, Janice Lynch, Phil Johnson, Karen Klauseger, Andrea Garfinkel, and many others for tuning into my live video with Barbara Starr! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Cosmopolitians! In case you missed it, check out my Substack Live on World Review with Ivo Daalder and Yasmeen Abutaleb on next steps in Ukraine. It was a lively discussion that dissected the week’s frantic diplomacy, but also takes the conversation on Ukraine forward. It was great to be Yasmeen, who has covered the White House for years and has a sharp perspective on how this White House operates. Thanks to Ivo for hosting, and look forward to returning the favor and having him here on Cosmopolitics

Danielle Pletka and I will be back today at 5:30 ET/2:30 PT for Hot Takes Happy Hour. We are calling this the Let’s Make a Deal Edition, and I’m sure we will have some creative ideas about what Putin deserves behind doors # 1, 2 and 3.

Donald Trump's approach to ending the Ukraine war resembles nothing so much as a reality TV producer who's lost the script halfway through filming. He improvises wildly from scene to scene, treats every meeting like a photo opportunity, and seems genuinely surprised when the other contestants don't follow his made-up rules. The only problem? Putin isn't playing reality TV - he's playing chess, and he's been at it for two decades.

The combination of that bizarre summit in Alaska with Vladimir Putin and the only slightly less surreal gathering of NATO leaders in Washington was the latest reminder that Trump operates as a well-meaning amateur in a professional's game. He doesn't prepare, doesn't have subordinates lay the groundwork beforehand, and arrives at each meeting not knowing what he wants or where his red lines are. He has no strategy and isn't interested in the details, so he just improvises as he goes.

Trump's Ukraine "peace process" is fundamentally a personal quest to win a Nobel Prize and, apparently, help him get into heaven. He genuinely wants to stop people from dying. "If I can get to heaven," he told FOX and Friends, "this will be one of the reasons." Yet his approach treats Ukraine like a particularly complex real estate transaction rather than a nation of 40 million people fighting for their survival.

In the Fox & Friends interview following his White House meetings, he demonstrated a grasp of Ukrainian history that would embarrass a high school student. The war, he explained, started because of Crimea and NATO - echoing Putin's early propaganda talking points that even the Kremlin has largely abandoned. He described Ukraine as existing merely as a "buffer" with the West and suggested that Ukrainian demands to return their own territory were "very insulting" to Russia. Most remarkably, he seemed to blame Ukraine for the conflict, noting "You don't take on a nation that's 10 times your size" - apparently unaware of who actually invaded whom.

This isn't just ignorance - it's a combination of unwillingness to learn and surrounding himself with advisors who either won't educate him about the region or are afraid to contradict his preconceptions. Trump's seat-of-the-pants approach becomes genuinely dangerous when the person improvising doesn't understand the basic facts of the situation and shows no interest in acquiring them.

The most telling detail about Trump's summit prep? His special envoy Steve Witkoff, a New York real estate developer whose knowledge of Russian culture may not extend much beyond the borscht at the Russian Tea Room on 57th Street, reportedly misunderstood Putin's core demands in spectacular fashion. When Russia demanded Ukrainian "peaceful withdrawal" from contested regions, Witkoff apparently interpreted this as an offer of Russian withdrawal from those same territories—essentially hearing the exact opposite of what Putin was actually proposing. This kind of fundamental miscommunication could have been avoided entirely if Trump had proper briefings beforehand. If he'd known the Russians weren't budging on their maximalist demands, the summit could have been a phone call and Trump could have spared himself the embarrassment.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Marco Rubio - who actually understands how real diplomacy works - is now working with Europeans on security guarantees for Ukraine, which offers some hope for a coherent formula. But Rubio seems to vacillate between acknowledging that negotiations are inherently difficult while giving the president credit for trying to end a devastating war, and attempting to justify the very Putin talking points that Trump has absorbed. Successful negotiations like those at Dayton or Camp David have one thing in common: they're meticulously prepared with advisers and working groups for weeks, if not months, to lay the groundwork for success. Rubio knows this playbook - the question is whether he can execute it while managing the expectations of a president who prefers dramatic gestures to patient groundwork.

What Putin accomplished in Alaska was breathtaking in its audacity. He got Trump to abandon his pre-summit demand for an immediate ceasefire, embrace Russia's preferred timeline for a "sweeping peace agreement," and essentially give Moscow permission to keep bombing Ukrainian civilians while they negotiate. In exchange, Putin offered exactly nothing - no territorial concessions, no meaningful commitments, just vague promises about "security guarantees" that he's broken repeatedly over two decades.

The trolling was genuine and immediate. On Monday morning Russian state media posted a video of what appeared to be a U.S.-made armored personnel carrier flying both American and Russian flags. The vehicle had allegedly been captured from Ukrainian forces and was now being used to attack Ukraine. The message was clear: America and Russia were now on the same side against Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov showed up to the summit wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with "CCCP"—the Cyrillic letters for the Soviet Union. Not exactly subtle.

Here is where it really gets absurd. Russia wants a say in Ukraine's security guarantees and wants territory it doesn't currently control. Putin's demands amount to asking Ukraine to cede regions where Russian forces have failed to achieve full control, while granting Russia veto power over Ukraine's future defense arrangements. It's like asking the burglar to help design your home security system.

Is Trump willing to give Russia back Alaska? Because that's the historical precedent Putin's invoking—the idea that territories can simply be transferred between great powers when it's convenient. Putin even suggested that Zelensky travel to Moscow for talks, a proposal so far-fetched that it revealed Russia's true contempt for the entire process.

As much as Europeans need to have Ukraine’s back, they also need to have Trump's—not because he doesn't want concessions from Putin, but because he can't get them. Trump isn't just an admirer of Putin or naive about Putin's motives; he's genuinely intimidated by him. Every time Trump sits across from Putin, he transforms from America First strongman to star-struck fan boy, eager to please a man who has spent decades perfecting the art of manipulating American presidents.

The sight of Ukrainian President Zelensky thanking Trump fifteen times in four and a half minutes during their White House meeting on Monday wasn't diplomatic courtesy - it was the desperate performance of a leader trying to prevent his country from being sold out by an American president who mistakes flattery for friendship.

Trump does have leverage. He could use it. But instead of wielding America's substantial economic and military advantages, Trump was seduced by Putin's personal charm and the fantasy that he could solve Europe's most complex crisis through pure charisma. Putin will eventually show his true colors again—he always does—but by then, how much Ukrainian territory will have been bargained away?

Putin didn't go to Alaska seeking peace—he went seeking a piece of Ukraine, preferably the whole piece if he could get it. Until Trump understands that fundamental difference, his peace process will remain what it's always been: great television, misguided diplomacy, and a gift to Vladimir Putin that keeps on giving.

Thank you Cash Flow Collective, Noble Blend, P. J. Schuster, Jaime HG 🇺🇸, Tracye Tallent, and many others for tuning into my live video with Ivo Daalder and Yasmeen Abutaleb! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe

Thank you Cash Flow Collective, David Galinsky, Amit Sen, The Nymph Channel, Gary Sorensen, and many others for tuning into my live video with Danielle Pletka! Join me for my next live video in the app.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.cosmopolitics.news/subscribe