Over the past few days, I have been in Washington engaging with senior American officials, Capitol Hill staffers and think tankers, and Middle East regional stakeholders on what has been an extraordinary breakthrough for Donald Trump.
On October 8, he announced that a ceasefire would take effect in Gaza on Friday and that the remaining Israeli hostages in Hamas custody would be released by Monday.
While Trump did not receive his much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, the peace agreement earned widespread international praise and implored some of his most ardent domestic critics to offer congratulatory words.
The overarching view in the Beltway, as far as I can gather, is that Trump has achieved a seismic short-term success but that the pathway to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East remains elusive.
Trump’s tenacious pursuit of a Gaza ceasefire reflected the generally unspoken exasperation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that was sharpening in Washington.
Amongst Democrats, the narrative that Netanyahu was primarily continuing the war to retain power and becoming increasingly unpredictable had credence. Although Republicans were much more willing to accept Israel’s security rationales at face value, they were also questioning whether military action was the most effective way forward. The narrative that Israel was trading short-term wins for long-term insecurity was starting to gain traction on both sides of the aisle.
While president Joe Biden voiced these frustrations through private exhortations to Netanyahu or the occasional critique from White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan, Trump energetically highlighted the urgency of peace in Gaza. Through persistent diplomacy and leveraging his years-long friendship with Netanyahu, Trump’s unconventional diplomatic style steered him towards peace without inflaming tensions with Israel.
Although Netanyahu’s far-Right coalition partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have vowed to strike down the deal, the general mood in Washington is that this peace deal has more robust foundations than the last two abortive ceasefires.
Netanyahu’s warnings about a possible return to war if Israeli demands were not met the “easy way” are aimed at pressuring Hamas not to baulk at the last minute and minimise the degree of coalitional polarisations at this time.
The longer-term picture is much more uncertain. While Trump’s twenty-point plan has avoided mass displacement of Palestinians and barred Israel from occupying the Gaza Strip, it still has many unaddressed issues. Chief amongst them is the recognition of a Palestinian state. The rift between America and its Arab partners on this question has been sharpened by the wave of European recognitions of Palestine, and is regarded as the single biggest threat to the agreement.
The role of the United Nations is another contentious question. Due to Unrwa’s alleged complicity in supporting Hamas and the UN’s staggering antipathy towards Israel, it may not be able to play a credible role in the post-war administration of Gaza. While many of Netanyahu’s allies acquiesced to the view that economic assistance would dissuade Palestinians from backing Hamas militarism after the 2014 Gaza War, October 7 shattered the credibility of this contention. The UN’s continued reliance on this assumption further alienates it from Israel.
This creates an environment where Middle East regional powers use reconstruction investments to compete for influence in Gaza. While Saudi Arabia has aligned with the UAE in opposing a post-war political role for Hamas, Qatar fears that its exclusion could contribute to its long-term militarisation and empower more extremist groups like Islamic Jihad (PIJ). This rift is worrisome as external meddling has a long history of exacerbating protracted conflicts in the Middle East.
The lack of resolution of the regional tensions that inflamed after October 7 is another area of concern for U.S. policymakers. The end of the Gaza War is unlikely to lead to renewed US-Iran nuclear negotiations, a cessation of Houthi threats to maritime shipping or the end of Israel-Turkey proxy rivalries in Syria. The regional environment that allowed October 7 to transpire remains disturbingly unchanged.
Trump’s Gaza ceasefire was a milestone foreign policy achievement that reinforces his status as a “peace president.” This triumph notwithstanding, the hardest work in the path towards long-term Middle East peace is yet to come.
Over the past few days, I have been in Washington engaging with senior American officials, Capitol Hill staffers and think tankers, and Middle East regional stakeholders on what has been an extraordinary breakthrough for Donald Trump.
On October 8, he announced that a ceasefire would take effect in Gaza on Friday and that the remaining Israeli hostages in Hamas custody would be released by Monday.
While Trump did not receive his much-coveted Nobel Peace Prize, the peace agreement earned widespread international praise and implored some of his most ardent domestic critics to offer congratulatory words.
The overarching view in the Beltway, as far as I can gather, is that Trump has achieved a seismic short-term success but that the pathway to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East remains elusive.
Trump’s tenacious pursuit of a Gaza ceasefire reflected the generally unspoken exasperation with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu that was sharpening in Washington.
Amongst Democrats, the narrative that Netanyahu was primarily continuing the war to retain power and becoming increasingly unpredictable had credence. Although Republicans were much more willing to accept Israel’s security rationales at face value, they were also questioning whether military action was the most effective way forward. The narrative that Israel was trading short-term wins for long-term insecurity was starting to gain traction on both sides of the aisle.
While president Joe Biden voiced these frustrations through private exhortations to Netanyahu or the occasional critique from White House national security advisor Jake Sullivan, Trump energetically highlighted the urgency of peace in Gaza. Through persistent diplomacy and leveraging his years-long friendship with Netanyahu, Trump’s unconventional diplomatic style steered him towards peace without inflaming tensions with Israel.
Although Netanyahu’s far-Right coalition partners Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have vowed to strike down the deal, the general mood in Washington is that this peace deal has more robust foundations than the last two abortive ceasefires.
Netanyahu’s warnings about a possible return to war if Israeli demands were not met the “easy way” are aimed at pressuring Hamas not to baulk at the last minute and minimise the degree of coalitional polarisations at this time.
The longer-term picture is much more uncertain. While Trump’s twenty-point plan has avoided mass displacement of Palestinians and barred Israel from occupying the Gaza Strip, it still has many unaddressed issues. Chief amongst them is the recognition of a Palestinian state. The rift between America and its Arab partners on this question has been sharpened by the wave of European recognitions of Palestine, and is regarded as the single biggest threat to the agreement.
The role of the United Nations is another contentious question. Due to Unrwa’s alleged complicity in supporting Hamas and the UN’s staggering antipathy towards Israel, it may not be able to play a credible role in the post-war administration of Gaza. While many of Netanyahu’s allies acquiesced to the view that economic assistance would dissuade Palestinians from backing Hamas militarism after the 2014 Gaza War, October 7 shattered the credibility of this contention. The UN’s continued reliance on this assumption further alienates it from Israel.
This creates an environment where Middle East regional powers use reconstruction investments to compete for influence in Gaza. While Saudi Arabia has aligned with the UAE in opposing a post-war political role for Hamas, Qatar fears that its exclusion could contribute to its long-term militarisation and empower more extremist groups like Islamic Jihad (PIJ). This rift is worrisome as external meddling has a long history of exacerbating protracted conflicts in the Middle East.
The lack of resolution of the regional tensions that inflamed after October 7 is another area of concern for U.S. policymakers. The end of the Gaza War is unlikely to lead to renewed US-Iran nuclear negotiations, a cessation of Houthi threats to maritime shipping or the end of Israel-Turkey proxy rivalries in Syria. The regional environment that allowed October 7 to transpire remains disturbingly unchanged.
Trump’s Gaza ceasefire was a milestone foreign policy achievement that reinforces his status as a “peace president.” This triumph notwithstanding, the hardest work in the path towards long-term Middle East peace is yet to come.