In a surprising turn of events, a Gaza breakthrough has been announced, culminating in the release of all remaining hostages. This achievement, long sought by both President Trump and his predecessor President Biden, marks a significant diplomatic success. While this is just the first step toward lasting peace, with details on Hamas disarmament, Gaza’s governance, and Israeli withdrawal still to be negotiated, the deal could be the defining moment of Trump’s second term. It’s a stark contrast to the efforts of the Biden administration, which struggled to achieve similar progress. Trump’s distinctive diplomatic style, combined with his established relationships with key players in Israel and the Arab world, appears to have been instrumental. However, as is often the case in diplomacy, factors beyond anyone’s direct control also played a crucial role.
Trump’s close bond with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, characterized by mutual praise and strong actions like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem and challenging the legality of West Bank settlements, provided a foundation for his influence. During his first term, Trump’s administration took bold steps, including ordering US bombers to target Iran’s nuclear facilities. These actions, coupled with his unique brand of assertive diplomacy, suggest a willingness to exert pressure that was not seen during the Biden administration. Reports indicate that Trump’s negotiator, Steve Witkoff, played a pivotal role in persuading Netanyahu to accept a temporary ceasefire in exchange for hostage releases. This level of direct presidential pressure on an Israeli leader is virtually unprecedented.
In contrast, President Biden’s approach, often termed a “bear hug” strategy, aimed to publicly support Israel while privately seeking moderation. However, this strategy was complicated by deep divisions within the Democratic party regarding the Gaza conflict. While Biden’s long-standing support for Israel was a factor, Trump’s solid base provided him with greater political flexibility. Ultimately, the article suggests that Israel’s readiness for peace during Biden’s term may have been the missing element, rather than a failure of his diplomatic efforts. With Iran subdued, Hezbollah’s influence diminished, and Gaza facing devastation, Trump found himself in a position to capitalize on the circumstances to achieve his objectives.
The article also highlights the impact of international pressure on Trump’s decisions. Global condemnation of Israel’s actions in Gaza, particularly the humanitarian crisis, created a backdrop against which Trump’s diplomacy unfolded. The coordinated stance of European nations, led by France, signaled a shift away from unconditional support for Israel, a move that influenced regional dynamics. Trump’s prior business dealings and diplomatic engagement with Gulf states, including visits to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, seem to have cultivated relationships that proved advantageous. His Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab nations, were a testament to his ability to foster new alliances. The author posits that Trump’s engagement with Middle Eastern leaders, who repeatedly called for an end to the conflict, may have shifted his perspective.
Trump’s unconventional style, often marked by initial bluster followed by more pragmatic engagement, is seen as a key factor. His past approach to North Korea, where bombastic rhetoric preceded direct talks, is cited as an example. While Trump initially suggested radical ideas about relocating Palestinians from Gaza, his subsequent 20-point peace plan aligned more closely with conventional diplomatic proposals, including those supported by America’s allies. The article concludes that despite the unconventional path, Trump’s approach has, at this moment, proven effective in achieving a breakthrough that eluded previous administrations. The author wryly notes that while Trump may not win a Nobel Peace Prize, his recent actions have made such a prospect seem less improbable.