As Israel and Hamas agree to a ceasefire through a US President Donald Trump-mediated resolution after more than two years of conflict, Trump may be witnessing the first tangible outcome of his much-touted and often self-acclaimed conflict resolution abilities. With all living hostages released by Hamas, perhaps the first critical hurdle in the implementation of the deal has been overcome.
Trump flew to the region to own the moment, which most would argue is well deserved. For Trump, it was wins all around: The release of Palestinians from Israeli jails, return of Israeli hostages, the conferment of Israel’s highest civilian honour, and his central role in the international peace summit at Sharm el-Sheikh. Yet, his 20-point agenda for the resolution of the conflict leaves out some key questions about implementation, the future of governance in Gaza, Israel’s full withdrawal and the two-state solution. Beyond the region, perhaps the most towering question is whether and how Trump is likely to use the Middle East model to resolve international conflicts elsewhere, given that the Israel-Hamas resolution will be his crown jewel.
If Hamas were to reject Trump’s deal, he would have doubled down, testing both the limits of his presidential power and the US’s ability to intervene in conflicts. To be fair, with this ceasefire, Trump may have demonstrated that the use of raw state power and the right mix of economic and military pressure alongside the opportunity for an off-ramp could open doors in the toughest situations.
Both Hamas and Israel were under tremendous pressure. The Trump-brokered deal does remain more favourable to Israel with the IDF remaining inside Gaza and the possibility of Israel’s military returning if Hamas fails to live by the agreed terms of the ceasefire. Further, Israel’s decision to withdraw from Gaza, especially Gaza City, and agreeing to a ceasefire may be as much of a lifeline to the residual Hamas contingents as it is to Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu politically.
Perhaps the biggest question overshadowed by the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas is one about the day after in Gaza. The prolonged nature of the conflict and peaking frustrations have prevented the focus from being on the future. Securing the ceasefire itself became a goal of gigantic proportions. Trump’s 20-point agenda does lay out a broad roadmap but both sides’ calibrated silence on certain key issues leaves the future up in the air. Yet, Trump’s core impulses will likely be driven by a long-term economic game plan for the Middle East, which includes Gaza.
Trump’s decision to send a 200 personnel-strong force to monitor the implementation of the Gaza ceasefire may be the beginning of the arc of the Trumpian formula in the region. Peace in the Middle East at the barrel of a gun would have been a fantasy in a different era. With Trump, the calculated use of force is not the ultimate resort but a natural follow-up action should diplomacy fail. This is perhaps the extreme extension of his economic approach which makes baseline tariffs on countries appear as the new normal.
The Trump administration’s obsession with the Middle East — undergirded by an economic rationale — goes back to his first term and the scramble to usher peace through the Abraham Accords. Trump’s billionaire friend and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff has only added to that incentive and momentum.
What perhaps challenged Trump in his second term was that Netanyahu sometimes behaved as an independent actor, while enjoying the full support of the US militarily and financially. Unlike Joe Biden, who was a president that allowed Netanyahu to operate with a long leash, Trump wants to be in control. This difference eventually became the basis of Trump’s ability to coerce both Netanyahu and Hamas. With Hamas, it was easy for Trump to say “all bets are off” but with Netanyahu, he knew that power, politics and economics would have to be balanced to achieve the intended goals. Netanyahu’s surprise attack on Hamas officials in Doha gave Trump that opportunity.
For Washington, the attack was not just about Israel striking its adversaries; it was also about Israel doing so on Qatar’s soil, a close American security partner and host to vital US military bases. The implications of such an incident stretched far beyond a bilateral Israel-Hamas confrontation. It directly threatened the equilibrium that the US has tried to maintain between its two closest poles in the region: Its commitment to Israeli security and its reliance on Gulf allies.
The fine line he sought to walk reflected the broader contradiction in US Middle East policy. The US remains Israel’s most steadfast ally while it plays the role of a regional arbiter. Trump’s rhetorical positioning underscored how politically perilous this balance is, particularly in moments of crisis.
The writer is Visiting Fellow, ORF America and Deputy Director, Strategic Studies Programme, ORF
