‘Peace through strength’ has made a comeback. The US struck Iranian nuclear sites and NATO allies have committed to boosting defence spending. Australia faces the challenge of staying close to the US while pursuing regional stability in the ‘Australian way’, as alluded to by Prime Minister Albanese this weekend.
Some support this military turn, pointing to defence warnings of the “biggest strategic challenges since World War II.” Others see it as a dangerous fallacy given global military spending has increased 37 percent over the past decade, but peace remains elusive.
For others still, this power posturing risks inflaming tensions and distracting from non-traditional threats—climate, cyber, disease, and fragility—that can’t be solved with bombs and rockets.
We asked three experts: Trump wants 'peace through strength'. What's the implication for Australia's approach to stability in the Indo-Pacific?
On 2 April 2025 the US shredded its credibility as a partner by indiscriminately leveling arbitrary tariffs, flouting the international trading system of the past 80 years. Then on 22 June, President Trump dramatically restored America’s reliability as an ally by sending B-2 bombers to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities. Trump didn’t start the so-called ‘12-Day War’, but he has been determined to end it. The strike breathes unmistakable credibility into America’s deterrence: nuclear pariahs like Iran and North Korea and strategic adversaries Russia and China can now be in no doubt over Trump’s willingness to act.
In striking Iran there was no gesture toward validating the action through the UN Security Council. International institutions are unimportant to the peace America intends to enforce. So, we have peace for now, but we may lack order.
For such a world, Australia has a deficit of power. The limitations in scale and capability of our defence force are well canvased. The size of our diplomatic corps trails countries half our size. Our cultural and commercial soft power is largely unguided by any ‘all tools’ approach to statecraft.
In the absence of American deference to international institutions, treaty allies are deploying new approaches to ensure American security guarantees to their region. The Europeans have chosen inducement, with NATO members lifting defence spending to 5% of GDP. The Israelis have chosen coercion, capitalising on the weakness of long-time foes to boldly leap toward strategic victories, banking that America, would not leave them in the lurch. Under the Biden Administration AUKUS may have been sufficient to tie America to the Indo-Pacific, but Trump is seeking decisive competitive advantage over America’s adversaries now. Australia must build—and exert—its power if it wishes to shape whatever peace can be sustained in our region.
Will is a national security scholar . He is currently a senior fellow at ASPI and a senior advisor for the Australian Industry Group. His specialisations include international security, Indo-Pacific strategic affairs, and Australian foreign and defence policy with a PhD in national security policy. At the Lab, we are excited by William's expertise across so many fields of foreign policy (which sees us also cross paths with him in our AP4D work) and you can catch him in action over the years on the National Security Podcast.
The dominant lens for understanding and addressing stability in the Indo-Pacific region is major power competition, yet internal conflict and governance challenges are the primary drivers of instability in the region. A Trumpian “peace through strength” approach to addressing these challenges is to be avoided.
Responding to intra-state conflict with a narrow ‘peace through strength’ mindset—marked by the use or threat of force and authoritarian governance—tends to inflame, rather than resolve, societal grievances. History repeatedly shows that such an approach, while it may contain unrest and provide a perception of stability, most often intensifies tensions. Think: Iraq, Northern Ireland, Mindanao, Bougainville.
Real peace begins with addressing the underlying drivers of instability: unresolved post-conflict tensions, fractured or autocratic governance, and secessionist demands. Left unaddressed, these issues leave communities vulnerable to exploitation by external actors, stalled development, and the escalating effects of climate-induced conflict.
Worryingly, at this time of a rising appetite for ‘strength’, we are seeing a corresponding global decline in investment in peace and stability - particularly in the Indo-Pacific. The withdrawal of USAID, along with a gradual reduction of European interest in the Indo-Pacific (to focus on its own neighborhood) is forming a gap in donor expertise, analysis and investment in peace and development in the region.
Australia now has a real opportunity to address this gap. Achieving its vision of a peaceful, stable, and prosperous Indo-Pacific requires more than being the region’s partner of choice in a geostrategic sense.
It requires a holistic partnership approach—one that puts as much emphasis on building inclusive political settlements, resilient institutions, and community trust as it does on defense cooperation. The Australian Government will need to further invest in internal expertise and forge new external partnerships capable of delivering a principled, sustained, and decidedly anti-‘strength’ model of diplomacy and development assistance.
Ciaran O'Toole heads up Conciliation Resources' work in Southeast Asia and the Pacific, sits on its global executive team, and is based out of their Melbourne branch office. Ciaran has over 15 years peacebuilding and mediation support experience, including working in the Bangsamoro and PNG. At the Lab we love Ciaran’s in-depth knowledge and insights on the contexts where Conciliation Resources does its peacebuilding work, and his passionate advocacy for conflict prevention – informed by his Irish upbringing perhaps.
US President Trump’s ‘peace through strength’ effort should be completely unsurprising. The president has long lauded the world’s strongmen leaders; in 2018, he engaged in a “my bomb is bigger than your bomb” type-exchange with Kim Jong Un; and in the run-up to his re-election, touted his superior strength as a gateway to restore world peace. For the Trump administration, strength means military force, using unpredictability as a means of deterrence, and putting America First.
However, military might is but one muscle in the body of a strong peacemaker. Too much focus on one’s guns can lead to some imbalances.
The slashes to US Foreign Assistance have diminished US soft power in the region. Military action in Iran, the Liberation Day tariffs, proposed travel bans and the mass deportation of immigrants have left Indo-Pacific countries in the lurch, offside, and questioning US security guarantees. All this shows a giant step away from the belief in partners as ‘multipliers’ of US strength, and from the kinds of cooperation that have underpinned global stability over the last decades.
The implication for Australia should also be unsurprising: our world is less stable. But, we’ve been acting on the presumption of this exact eventuality— regional instability, contestation, disruption— for a long time. Accordingly, we’ve been strengthening our stabilising muscles forging new partnerships in the Pacific, re-emphasising relationships with Southeast Asia, holding firm to aid budgets, and sharpening focus on gaps in our military capabilities.
We’re going to need a range of dynamic partnerships, options, points of view, capabilities—all the tools of statecraft—to be future-ready for a range of complex and multifaceted challenges. To follow the Trump model of peace granted only by military muscle will surely leave us wobbly, wonky and weak.
Victoria is a foreign policy expert, experienced researcher and media commentator with a background in US politics, public opinion and the Australia-US relationship. Victoria was acknowledged as a Young Women to Watch in International Affairs in 2024 and is an emerging Associate at the National Security College at ANU. As our newest Senior Analyst, the team at the Lab love Victoria’s quick wit, and deep expertise and curiosity - which are reflected through her incisive analysis and editorial flair.
