Why is the US playing chief mediator in the Middle East over the UN?

The United Nations’ limitations

The UN’s vast membership has become its biggest limitation in mediating not just Middle Eastern but global conflicts. Consider this: how often have ceasefire resolutions failed simply because a few countries abstained or voted against them? Countless times.

The UN operates through consensus among its diverse member states, which frequently have conflicting interests and alliances in various regions. This makes developing an agreement and taking decisive action difficult, especially when major powers like Russia, China, and the US use their Security Council vetoes to block resolutions that may threaten strategic interests.

Moreover, the UN’s peacekeeping missions in the Middle East face severe resource and mandate constraints. Limited funding, insufficient troops, and weak enforcement authority mean UN forces often cannot prevent violence or impose peace when conflicts escalate, undermining its effectiveness and credibility.

In fact, over a hundred UN personnel were killed in Gaza by strikes, highlighting the UN’s limited ability to protect its staff compared to militarily capable states like the US.

This explains why the US, through its influence, has always had a better vantage in brokering peace more quickly, while the UN remains bogged down by bureaucracy and competing agendas.

Responses to Trump’s intervention

Nevertheless, Trump’s Middle East involvement has obviously drawn both criticism and praise.

Many world leaders, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, rejected his Gaza proposals, such as the Riviera of the Middle East, viewing them as threats to regional stability. His stance against Western interventionism was welcomed by some in Saudi Arabia but also met with scepticism due to continued US support for Israel.

Amid escalating tensions between Israel and Iran, many analysts argue that had Trump not withdrawn from the Iranian nuclear deal, much of the current hostility might have been avoided. Now, he faces mounting pressure from Israeli officials to take decisive action against Iran.

On the other hand, segments of his MAGA base advocate for restraint, highlighting deep internal divisions over his Middle East strategy.

Overall, reactions to US involvement in global crises are mixed. The biggest concern of many is that a single nation is shaping the future of conflicts, overshadowing the UN’s more inclusive, multilateral approach.

Yet, given its unmatched influence and resources, the US remains the most likely actor to achieve swift and effective peace resolutions in urgent situations.