Features

Cohealth Service Cutoff — Victorian Government Cannot Ignore

Published

3 months ago

October 23, 2025

On October 16, Cohealth—one of Australia’s largest community health organizations and a non-profit medical institution—announced it would close three of its clinics. The news immediately sparked widespread public debate and criticism. The affected clinics are located in Collingwood, Fitzroy, and Kensington. The Fitzroy and Kensington clinics will cease general practitioner (GP) and consultation services this December, though they will continue providing specialized support for alcohol, drug, and domestic violence issues. The Collingwood centre is scheduled for full closure next June.

The closures will directly impact approximately 12,500 patients, resulting in 20 doctors losing their jobs and 44 nurses facing reassignment or redundancy. These clinics have long provided vital primary healthcare services to low-income individuals, the homeless, refugees, domestic violence survivors, and those with chronic illnesses, serving as an indispensable health support network within the community. However, due to insufficient funding, rising costs, and operational pressures, these services are now being forced to cease.

Nicole Bartholomeusz, CEO of Cohealth, stated that the cessation of services reflects “multiple and complex pressures, including decades of underinvestment, aging infrastructure, and funding models that don’t match actual needs or the type of care required.” She noted: “The funding we receive is only sufficient to provide standard care, but we actually serve high-need patients who often require extended appointments and comprehensive case management tailored to each individual.”

Cohealth’s current Medicare subsidy only covers physician salaries, failing to account for nurses, receptionists, and other operational costs. As wages and supply costs rise, the annual gap between clinic operating expenses and Medicare funding continues to widen.

Reforms Too Late, Support Too Little

In truth, Cohealth’s predicament did not emerge suddenly but resulted from years of accumulated challenges. Although the federal Labor government has pushed Medicare reforms in recent years to enhance the sustainability of the universal healthcare system—such as the upcoming Bulk Billing Practice Incentive Program (BBPIP) launching November 1st, which will expand Medicare coverage, encourage clinics to maintain bulk billing, and provide additional funding for facility upgrades and team expansion— This initiative aims to improve access and affordability of healthcare services, with approximately 4,800 clinics expected to benefit.

However, for Cohealth, this reform appears to have come too late. The root problem lies not solely at the federal level, but in the Victorian government’s long-standing neglect of the actual health needs within grassroots communities. The poverty, homelessness, addiction, and trauma issues plaguing local communities have long exceeded the capacity of standard clinics. Yet the Victorian government has failed to provide additional support or establish stable funding mechanisms to sustain non-for-profit healthcare providers.

Cohealth identifies two primary causes for the current crisis: First, insufficient Medicare funding from the federal government for managing complex patients; Second, the Victorian government has failed to fund upgrades for the aging facilities at the Collingwood clinic.

Cohealth has repeatedly called for government support over the years. As early as 2022, Cohealth issued a statement noting that while they supported the government’s health-focused budget, the community health model—which played a critical role during the pandemic—was once again being overlooked. At that time, Cohealth emphasized the need for comprehensive investment across the entire healthcare sector to strengthen the health system as a whole.

The clinic’s facilities have long been outdated, with roof leaks forcing appointment cancellations. Despite multiple funding applications to authorities over the years, no substantive response has been received. Infrastructure Victoria’s report highlights that government funding for community services is fragmented and inadequate. The federal government has yet to establish dedicated funding for community health infrastructure. Even though the Australian government allocated $117 billion to health and medical services for 2024-25, community health organizations received only 0.3% of Victoria’s annual health infrastructure expenditure of approximately $2 billion.

Amid chronic funding shortages and sluggish government reforms, the state government’s disregard for community needs and inaction ultimately sealed the fate of these clinics. This underscores the state government’s core responsibility in ensuring the continuity of primary healthcare services.

Who is accountable for healthcare quality and service delivery?

In fact, community healthcare systems did not originate from government initiatives but from charitable and faith-based traditions. Early hospitals were often founded by churches or charitable organizations with a simple mission: to provide basic care to the poor and vulnerable through empathy and compassion. Healthcare then embodied social conscience rather than being a product of policy or systems.

As society modernized and public health concepts emerged, governments gradually assumed responsibility, incorporating health into the realm of “public duty.” The original intent behind this shift was noble—to ensure equal access to healthcare for all. Yet the process of institutionalization and bureaucratization introduced new challenges: the original “people-centred” care became diluted by layers of administrative procedures and economic logic. Healthcare services increasingly emphasized efficiency and output, gradually losing its human warmth.

Non-profit medical institutions like Cohealth represent a continuation of this historical trajectory. They uphold the founding spirit of charitable healthcare—serving vulnerable communities while upholding the belief that everyone deserves the right to health and equal access to medical care. Yet in reality, these organizations rely on government subsidies and unstable funding sources to sustain their operations.

The contradiction lies in the fact that as societies grow wealthier, public healthcare systems should be better equipped to protect the vulnerable. Yet the opposite occurs: medical costs rise relentlessly, resource distribution grows increasingly unequal, and healthcare services become ever more commoditized. In this environment, doctors are forced to complete consultations within “six-minute appointments,” nurses and receptionists operate at breaking point, and patients slip through the cracks of the system, overlooked.

Yet when reflecting on responsibility, the question may extend beyond “Who is to blame?” to “Where should healthcare be headed?”

Should we pursue the endless quest to “cure every disease”? Or should we return to healthcare’s fundamental purpose—ensuring everyone accesses basic health protection?

When the wealthy pay more for faster, better care while the poor endure long queues, has the ideal of equality already been swallowed by market logic?

Take Hong Kong, for instance. As a low-tax society, its citizens enjoy public healthcare at minimal cost—subsidized for life simply by holding a Hong Kong ID card. However, with an aging population and healthcare staff shortages, the public system has been chronically overburdened, leading to months-long waits for emergency rooms and specialist appointments. Consequently, the affluent middle and upper classes turn to private clinics, trading money for efficiency. This creates a healthcare system that appears equitable on the surface but is fundamentally stratified: the government guarantees access to services but not equal speed or quality. In other words, everyone has the right to medical care, but whether you can get better quickly and where you receive treatment depends on how much money you have.

Canada’s public healthcare system, meanwhile, is more idealistic. All residents can access free public healthcare with a health card, free from concerns about high costs. However, long waiting times and uneven resource distribution transform “free” into another form of “cost.” When demand far exceeds supply, fairness and accessibility inevitably clash.

Moreover, should healthcare prioritize “universal access” or ‘quality’? Should governments provide “basic care” or “comprehensive coverage”?

Comparisons with China, Hong Kong, and Taiwan

From an international perspective, Australia’s public healthcare system (Medicare) differs significantly from those in mainland China and Taiwan, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Mainland China’s system, dominated by public hospitals, subsidizes basic care through social medical insurance (urban employee/resident insurance). However, due to its massive population and concentration of medical resources in major cities, primary community clinics often struggle to handle high-demand patients—particularly low-income groups and those with chronic conditions. This mirrors Cohealth’s current situation: “resource concentration leading to overflowing demand.”

Taiwan adopted a National Health Insurance (NHI) model emphasizing “one health insurance card, nationwide healthcare coverage,” ensuring basic medical services for all regardless of urban/rural location or income level. NHI strengthens primary care clinics through subsidies and incentives, stabilizing the family doctor system. Nevertheless, disparities in healthcare resource distribution between urban and rural areas persist, and wait times for specialist care can remain excessively long.

In contrast, Australia’s Medicare system pursues fairness and accessibility in theory. Yet in practice, non-profit primary care institutions face chronic funding shortages and aging facilities. While serving predominantly vulnerable populations, these clinics often shoulder service volumes exceeding subsidy coverage. This structural contradiction creates a significant gap between the system’s ideals and its actual service capacity, highlighting a common challenge faced by vulnerable groups under different systems: even with “systemic safeguards,” they may still be marginalized due to inadequate resource allocation.

Australia’s Core Healthcare Contradiction

Returning to Australia itself, the core issue of its healthcare system isn’t a lack of total funding, but rather structural contradictions arising from resource allocation, institutional design, and policy priorities. Medicare is primarily designed for “standard medical services” such as general consultations, basic tests, and medications. However, it does not provide corresponding subsidies for the time, labour costs, and interdisciplinary integrated care required for high-need or complex patients. This leaves vulnerable groups unable to access truly comprehensive healthcare under the existing system.

Non-profit community clinics like Cohealth exist precisely to fill this gap. They offer extended consultations, case management, mental health counselling, addiction and domestic violence support, and even multidisciplinary integrated programs—services standard GP clinics struggle to provide. However, these intensive services are not fully subsidized by Medicare. Combined with limited state investment in primary care infrastructure, clinics face chronic financial strain, ultimately forcing service reductions or partial closures.

Cohealth’s partial closures reflect a deep-seated contradiction within Australia’s healthcare system: equity and accessibility do not equate to substantive care guarantees for high-need populations. While everyone ostensibly has the right to medical care, those requiring prolonged attention and individualized management often survive only by navigating systemic gaps. The institutional design itself thus creates an “invisible inequity” for high-need patients.

Australia’s healthcare also grapples with the dilemma of balancing universal coverage and quality. On one hand, the system must ensure everyone receives at least basic treatment; on the other, complex patients require sufficient time, specialized support, and case management. In reality, however, insufficient government funding and a narrow subsidy structure make achieving both goals difficult. Doctors are forced to rush through consultations, nurses and receptionists operate at capacity, while vulnerable patients languish on waiting lists. Non-profit clinics like Cohealth strive to fill these gaps, but persistent financial pressures and policy constraints render “humanized healthcare” a luxury in practice.

In other words, the core issue with Australia’s public healthcare system isn’t merely about assigning responsibility, but whether the system can return to its founding principle: ensuring everyone accesses basic healthcare while providing high-need patients with adequate resources and compassionate support when required. Cohealth’s predicament serves as a stark warning: without structural adjustments to resource allocation by government and society, the ideal of fairness remains unattainable, and vulnerable groups will continue to be marginalized by the system.

The Victorian Government’s Indisputable Responsibility

While medical policy is set by the federal government, state governments bear responsibility for implementing it according to local realities. Cohealth’s inner-city service area has a population receiving government living subsidies that exceeds the Australian average by more than double, indicating many residents cannot afford private services. The Victorian Government’s refusal to provide financial support to institutions like Cohealth demonstrates a disregard for vulnerable communities.

A similar situation exists in elder care for multicultural communities. While federal funding supports aged care services, research indicates that non-English-speaking seniors benefit most from living in facilities that accommodate their cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Yet, emerging senior communities like the Chinese diaspora receive minimal Victorian government assistance to build suitable aged care facilities. Since 2014, Labor leader Andrews has repeatedly proposed policies to purchase four plots of land for the Chinese and Indian communities to build elderly care facilities. Yet to this day, the Victorian Department of Health continues to leave these sites vacant, failing to hand them over to community organizations to develop services. This demonstrates a dereliction of duty by government officials. This situation bears striking similarities to Cohealth Community Health Services ceasing operations today due to neglect. Should the Victorian Government conduct a thorough review of the Department of Health’s operations?

Editorial : Liz Li, Jenny Lun

Photo: Internet

Published in Sameway Magazine 24 October 2025

Post Views: 213

Features

Walking with the Solitary (1): The Lonely People

Published

5 days ago

January 29, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Raymond Chow

My New Challenge

Over the past few decades, I’ve written numerous books and articles on a wide variety of topics. However, last October, I decided to write a book entirely different from anything I had done before, titled Solitary but Not Isolated. I chose to publish it through crowdfunding. Readers interested in supporting this book can visit the following webpage to learn more and help make it a reality.

I attended a rooftop school in Hong Kong for primary education (a unique feature of Hong Kong in the 1960s: temporary classrooms built on top of apartment blocks in resettlement areas to accommodate children who had moved into the district). Resources were extremely limited. In sixth grade, the school principal gave me and seven other students the opportunity to post our writings on the bulletin board every two weeks for the whole school to read. This was my first experience of writing for a public audience.

In secondary school at Queen’s College, the school published the annual magazine The Yellow Dragon, the earliest and longest-running secondary school annual in Hong Kong. My writings were never published there, though my photos occasionally appeared in reports of school activities. At university, I volunteered as editor for a scholarly publication by the Science Society called Exploration, but after two or three years it was discontinued as no one wished to continue it.

During university, I studied mathematics, which required little essay writing—mostly problem-solving. After entering the field of education, I wrote numerous articles on Hong Kong education that were published in newspaper columns. Later, through curriculum development and teacher training in Hong Kong, I had the rare opportunity to write and publish mathematics textbooks spanning from Grade 1 to Form 7—something unprecedented in Hong Kong.

After moving to Australia, I served as editor of the Christian publication Living Monthly, and eventually founded Sameway magazine, which continues today. From the first issue, I wrote the opening column Words of Sameway, and over 21 years, I have written a total of 745 pieces—a record of my life.

Yet writing Solitary but Not Isolated is something I never anticipated doing since I first learned about autism decades ago. Publishing this book is closely connected to my work with Sameway. I can only say this is a new challenge given by God, a chance to take Sameway to a new stage.

Those Who Love Solitude

Solitary but Not Isolated tells the story of a person with autism. Based on her experiences, the Happy Hands Organization has developed a bilingual training program to help autistic individuals transition from school to the workplace. Launched this year, the program aims to support others in similar circumstances.

Most people with autism do not actively seek social interactions. When they do engage with strangers, they may appear difficult to connect with or communicate with, often leading to social neglect or isolation. For parents and family, this creates a lifelong burden. Even those who complete secondary or tertiary education, despite having professional knowledge, often cannot fully utilize their abilities at work because of incomplete social understanding and lack of basic communication skills. Consequently, they are frequently relegated to jobs that do not match their abilities or are assigned work requiring minimal interaction.

Western society’s understanding of autism began with the lifestyle demands of modern life, emphasizing early social engagement and learning in school. Families, having fewer children, often pay close attention to each child’s development and have higher expectations. Over the decades, understanding of autism has evolved—from viewing it as a mental illness to recognizing it as a deviation from typical personality development. Yet how society should assist their growth remains uncertain.

Decades ago, Western focus was on “treating” autism. Research into genetic, environmental, or physical causes has made limited progress. Interventions to change solitary behaviors are also limited—for example, providing speech therapy in childhood or occupational therapy for daily living skills offers only partial support. While societal acceptance and support for autistic individuals have greatly increased, parents feel that more is needed when their children enter adult life and the workforce.

In short, those inclined toward solitude still face a gap in having equal opportunities to thrive socially and professionally.

Understanding Society and the World

Many autistic individuals focus intensely on specific interests, with little experience in social relationships or current events. As adults, this often leads others to perceive them as unaware of society, or even “odd.” In workplaces, where collaboration is essential, they may face exclusion. Many end up in solitary work with minimal social interaction.

Among Chinese communities, first- or second-generation immigrants with autism often face compounded challenges due to limited knowledge of society. Parents, unfamiliar with Australian systems, cannot fully guide their children, and these high-ability individuals rarely integrate with society, limiting opportunities to demonstrate their potential.

In 2024, ABC launched The Assembly, a TV interview program where host Leigh Sales trained 15 autistic individuals to conduct interviews and produce the show. Participants significantly increased their understanding of society and the world, and their communication and social skills improved greatly.

Last year, Sameway had the opportunity to train a bilingual autistic new immigrant, successfully helping her become a magazine editor. Meanwhile, the Happy Hands Organization developed a workplace adaptation program for bilingual, high-functioning autistic individuals. Through four to six months of training, this program offers these often-overlooked individuals a chance to adapt and develop in Australia.

Thus, Sameway is not only an information platform supporting immigrant communities but also provides a development space and opportunities for those with special needs. Readers interested can contact our magazine or the Happy Hands Organization for details.

The Loneliness of Immigrants

Many immigrants arrive in Australia as adults. They often lack opportunities to understand society deeply and, due to work and life commitments, rarely have the time to engage fully with their new environment or develop close relationships with Australians. Consequently, most live within Chinese communities with similar backgrounds. Passive personalities or limited social skills often lead to intense feelings of loneliness.

Leaving their original home and social networks creates a sense of marginalization similar to that experienced by some autistic individuals. Many immigrants are willing to understand and engage with their new society but face personal limitations and a lack of proactive governmental support, leaving them unable to integrate fully into Australian life.

Chinese immigrants, in particular, may rely heavily on long-term Chinese social media and information platforms, further isolating them from the broader society. This social isolation significantly affects their participation and engagement in Australian life.

The goal of Sameway is to assist immigrants in integrating into Australia, fostering participation and engagement in society. We hope that with continued support, we can go further and achieve more.

Post Views: 20

Features

Walk With the Needy

Published

5 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

During the Christmas and New Year period, “Sameway” relocated though only to a spot less than 100 meters across from their original office. It was a tiring task, but we have finally settled in, allowing us to take a longer break during the holiday.

However, the world still undergoes significant changes. The President of Venezuela has been forcibly taken to New York for trial, while the new leader of Venezuela is willing to govern in line with U.S. interests. The longstanding alliance between Europe and the U.S. has become history in light of the U.S. attempt to purchase Greenland. The “Board of Peace” established by Trump requests that nations place the keeping of global peace in his personal hands, but attendees at the invitation include authoritarian dictators who have initiated wars multiple times. The generation that has grown up advocating for global integration, respect for human rights, and peaceful coexistence is now at a lost and confused. Will the world revert to a chaotic state governed by the law of the jungle, where strong countries dominate weaker ones, or can humanity choose to move forward in civilization by learning mistakes from history? We truly have no sure answer.

However, it is a time where the rise of Trump and the increasing power of global far-right political forces, coupled with the internet and social media replacing traditional media as the main source of information for many people. This has led to a society overwhelmed with information and challenges in distinguishing truth from falsehood, which is equally as frightening as an era where information is blocked, preventing access to necessary knowledge.

In Australia, as a multicultural country, immigrants face significant difficulties in obtaining lifestyle information through mainstream media. I believe that to build Australia as a harmonious and cohesive society, the government must invest substantial resources to assist immigrant communities to establish high-quality and credible multicultural media, and to accelerate the integration of first-generation immigrants into society, allowing them to become a driving force in social development.

In the past year, we have strengthened the current affairs information provided on our website. In the coming year, we will focus on enhancing our information services for the Chinese community through our broadcasts and magazine publications. I hope you can support us in achieving the goal of promoting the development of the Chinese immigrant community.

Starting this year, in line with the REJOICE’s initiative for bilingual new immigrants with autism, I will be writing a brand-new column to explore this topic with the community as they navigate With the NDIS program. I hope this innovative program by the REJOICE will receive your support for promotion and development within the community.

Additionally, after three years of training aimed at encouraging seniors to use social platforms to expand their community engagement, we will take a further step this year by launching training courses to assist seniors in using artificial intelligence. Our goal is to help Chinese seniors in Australia stay up-to-date and enjoy a higher quality of life brought about by AI.

In the new year, let us work together to build a stronger local Chinese community.

Post Views: 30

Features

Entering Trump 2.0’s New World

Published

5 days ago

January 28, 2026

Blessing CALD Editorial

Since January 20, 2025, when Trump assumed the U.S. presidency once again, domestic issues in America have been frequent and complex, but the world cannot deny that his foreign policy has reshaped the global political landscape, ushering in a new era.

Over the past year, Trump has been extremely proactive in foreign affairs—from Greenland to Venezuela—demonstrating relentless ambition to expand U.S. influence abroad, even amid controversy and the risk of destabilizing other nations.

Prelude to 2025

Let’s briefly review Trump’s major foreign policy actions in 2025.

First, his involvement in the Gaza Strip cannot be overlooked. In February 2025, he publicly stated that the U.S. would play a more active, even leading, role in the region, supporting Israel’s security needs, including strengthening border defense and intelligence sharing. He also attempted to broker ceasefire talks in the U.S.’s name, coordinating Egypt, Qatar, and other countries as intermediaries. By October, Trump personally attended a multilateral meeting in Sharm El-Sheikh, pushing for a ceasefire agreement and reconstruction framework between Israel and Hamas.

While opinions on his approach were divided, with some critics arguing that direct intervention could heighten regional tensions, Trump nonetheless reaffirmed America’s influence and presence in Middle Eastern affairs.

Early in 2025, the Trump administration reviewed all foreign aid and temporarily halted military assistance to Ukraine, using it as leverage to push forward negotiations. By mid-March, following U.S.–Ukraine consultations, military and security support resumed, including air defense systems, drone technology, and financial assistance. The U.S. also advocated international sanctions against Russia, such as high-tech export restrictions and asset freezes. These actions demonstrated Trump’s support for strategic allies and further solidified U.S. influence in Europe.

While these events may seem unrelated, they set the stage for early 2026’s diplomatic developments.

The Venezuela Raid

Trump’s most notable action in January 2026 was the sudden capture (or abduction) of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife.

In fact, as early as December 1, 2025, Trump had called Maduro, demanding he step down. When Maduro refused, Trump publicly ramped up pressure in mid-to-late December, applying economic and military pressure—including blockades, intercepting suspicious ships, and bolstering military deployments—to isolate the Maduro government. He even hinted that further U.S. action might follow if Maduro continued to resist, signaling a preemptive warning.

The result: U.S. forces launched a large-scale operation codenamed “Absolute Determination”, storming Caracas, capturing Maduro and his wife, and transporting them to New York for trial. The justification cited Maduro and his inner circle’s involvement in drug trafficking and terrorism, including conspiracies to smuggle cocaine into the U.S. At the same time, Maduro’s government had close ties with China and Russia, who provided military and economic support, posing a threat to U.S. influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The operation was also seen as a move to block rival powers from gaining leverage in Venezuela. More importantly, given Venezuela’s vast oil reserves, Trump clearly aimed to reassert U.S. dominance in the hemisphere and secure economic benefits. For many Americans, the raid showcased U.S. military might, boosting Trump’s prestige and approval. True to form, Trump paid little attention to criticism, focusing instead on praise, and was visibly self-satisfied.

International reactions were strong. China and Russia immediately condemned the U.S. action, calling it a severe violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and international law. Iran and other nations with tense U.S. relations also criticized the operation as unilateralism under the guise of anti-drug and anti-terrorism efforts, destabilizing the region.

European responses were mixed. Some EU countries long critical of Maduro still expressed reservations about the U.S. bypassing international authorization for direct military action, emphasizing that even dealing with authoritarian regimes should follow international mechanisms. This tension revealed the strain Trump’s style places on traditional allies.

In Latin America, reactions were split: anti-Maduro governments and Venezuelan opposition privately supported the move as a chance to break political deadlock, while others feared overt U.S. military intervention might revive Cold War-era “Monroe Doctrine” fears, worsening regional security.

Currently, former Vice President Rodríguez serves as interim president of Venezuela, cooperating with the U.S. while maintaining loyalty to the domestic ruling class, keeping the country relatively stable. For Trump, the goal of preventing other powers from gaining influence in the Americas and securing economic gains was achieved. Many Americans saw the raid as a demonstration of military strength, reinforcing Trump’s image as a decisive leader.

Trump’s Greenland Gambit

Since 2025, Trump has repeatedly brought Greenland into the spotlight, making it one of the most challenging and controversial topics of his second term.

Greenland, the world’s largest island, is under Danish sovereignty but enjoys local autonomy. Its location between North America and Europe along the Arctic shipping route has made it strategically valuable. Previously overlooked due to extreme cold, climate change and melting ice have expanded Arctic navigation, increasing Greenland’s military and technological importance. The island also contains vast deposits of rare earth and critical minerals, essential for modern technology and defense systems.

Trump’s assertive approach clearly aimed to maximize U.S. influence over Greenland. In 2025, he publicly expressed interest in buying Greenland and urged negotiations to secure it, even hinting at military options. This escalated tensions with Denmark and Europe.

European reactions were unanimous: Greenlandic leaders stated the island is “not for sale”, and massive protests erupted in Greenland and Denmark. The UK prime minister warned Trump that high tariffs or aggression would be a grave mistake, while EU countries—including Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK—supported Danish sovereignty. Even European far-right parties, traditionally aligned with Trump, criticized his Greenland strategy as overt aggression, causing internal rifts.

At the 2026 Davos World Economic Forum, Trump and NATO Secretary-General Rutte reached a “preliminary framework” focusing on Arctic security cooperation rather than territorial control. Trump framed it as safeguarding U.S. military bases and economic interests, while Denmark retained final authority. However, Greenland’s government stressed it was not fully involved in negotiations, highlighting an ongoing tension. Analysts debate whether this is a tactical retreat or pragmatic compromise.

Even with the temporary easing of tensions, U.S.–Europe trust has been strained, showing how far-reaching Trump’s assertive diplomacy has become.

Iran Unrest and U.S. Pressure

From late December 2025, Iran experienced nationwide protests, initially triggered by economic collapse, currency devaluation, and skyrocketing living costs, evolving into broad dissatisfaction with the regime. The government’s harsh crackdown led to casualties and arrests on a scale unseen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

The U.S., which maintains heavy sanctions against Iran citing terrorism sponsorship and nuclear/military threats, seized this moment to intervene. Trump publicly announced deploying a fleet—including aircraft carriers and missile destroyers—to the Persian Gulf to deter further escalation. He emphasized a preference for avoiding force but warned of potential military action if the regime continued violent repression.

Trump also communicated with Iranian protesters via public statements and social media, encouraging demonstrations and denouncing government violence. He canceled all official diplomatic talks until Tehran ceased the crackdown. While some protesters hoped for U.S. support, the absence of direct action led to frustration and feelings of abandonment.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard leaders warned that any U.S. strike would be considered a full-scale war. Protests and anti-U.S. imagery reflected strong resistance. Intelligence reports indicating a temporary halt in state violence led Trump to consider pausing military actions while closely monitoring the situation, balancing threats with cautious observation.

Trump’s strategy combined military presence and public warnings to pressure Tehran, deter large-scale killings, and strengthen U.S. influence in the Middle East. Yet this high-risk approach also raised the possibility of miscalculations, where tensions could escalate unintentionally, making the U.S. a target for criticism and resistance.

The “Board of Peace”

Traditionally, the U.S. has been seen as the global big brother. But with China’s growing influence and global economic support programs, U.S. presidents often feel impatient with Beijing’s increasing UN sway. Trump, ambitious and assertive, sought to take matters further.

At the 2026 Davos Forum, he launched the “Board of Peace”, initially proposed to address Gaza peace but now expanded to serve as a broader global conflict mediation mechanism. The initiative leverages U.S. influence to create an alternative diplomatic platform and invites multiple countries to participate.

However, critics question whether it is more for show than genuine peacekeeping. The EU’s concern lies less with the stated goals and more with the lack of clarity: the legal status, decision-making process, funding, and international law accountability remain unspecified. Unlike multilateral bodies like the UN or OSCE, this U.S.-backed, president-driven mechanism risks becoming a coercive tool rather than a genuine mediator.

The EU fears it could undermine Europe’s long-standing role in Middle East diplomacy, forcing it from rule-maker to follower. China was excluded, reflecting Trump’s view of Beijing as a competitor, not a partner. The Board aims to present participation as a political statement, effectively creating a U.S.-led bloc in global conflict mediation.

For Australia, the Board is a hot potato. Prime Minister Albanese received an invitation but has not confirmed participation. Several NATO and EU countries have declined, while Canada was disinvited over disagreements on China policy. Thirty-plus leaders who accepted include war actors like Putin and Israel’s Netanyahu. How they could effectively promote peace remains questionable, and handling the invitation diplomatically will test Albanese’s political skill.

Trump’s Diplomatic Logic

Across Gaza, Ukraine, Venezuela, Greenland, Iran, and the Board of Peace, Trump’s strategy is consistent: proactive engagement, pressure, disruption of norms, and forcing allies and adversaries to recalculate. He eschews slow multilateral negotiations in favor of military, economic, and media leverage, coupled with highly personalized decision-making, shifting power quickly at the negotiating table.

To Trump, diplomacy is a continuous game of strategy, not merely maintaining order. He pushes situations to the edge, then retreats strategically to gain advantage. While controversial and eroding trust among allies, it successfully recenters U.S. influence.

Crucially, Trump applies pressure not only to adversaries but to allies, forcing them to demonstrate loyalty or strategic value. This increases U.S. bargaining leverage but consumes trust capital, making international relations more transactional and short-term, and setting the stage for future friction.

Costs and Risks of Assertive Diplomacy

Reliance on pressure and uncertainty may yield short-term results but risks long-term instability. Highly personalized, low-institutional approaches erode trust in rules, procedures, and multilateral cooperation. Misjudgments are more likely in opaque, high-stakes situations. Allies and adversaries may misread threats, escalating conflict even without provocation.

Trump is reshaping U.S. diplomacy from guardian of order to rewriter of order, providing tactical flexibility but weakening institutional credibility. Whether the U.S. can balance assertive pressure with sustained trust will determine its long-term global leadership.

Ultimately, Trump’s strategy may open new strategic space for the U.S. or provoke deeper backlash and confrontation. One thing is certain: the international stage in 2026 is no longer the old world, and Trump is the key variable driving this structural transformation.