Trump returns to the White House as the Middle East is in worse shape than when he began his previous presidency in 2017. The region is experiencing a war in Gaza that surpassed its first year in October, which has had repercussions across the entire Middle East, bringing the region to the brink of explosion, especially if Iran and Israel decide to cross all boundaries and engage in a large-scale regional war. These circumstances raise complex questions about the future of the Gaza War under the new U.S. administration; the war was one of the key issues Trump brought up during his campaign, pledging on several occasions to end the conflict upon his return to the White House. However, doubts remain regarding Trump’s vision for concluding the war, particularly since his promises have been vague, lacking details and specific steps, and have emerged in an electoral context that has turned the Gaza War into an electoral tool for Trump to pressure Democrats and undermine their electoral chances.
Ambiguous Discourse
Many media outlets have been promoting Trump’s statements about his ability to swiftly end the war in Gaza. This preoccupation, perhaps even celebration of Trump’s potential to end the conflict, has ignored other dimensions of the U.S. president’s stance and its complexities. An analysis of Trump’s rhetoric regarding the war reveals several key features:
Vague Promises of a Swift Conclusion: Over the past months, Trump has expressed, on multiple occasions, his desire to quickly end the war in Gaza. In a radio interview in April 2024, he stated, “Let’s get this done, let’s return to peace and stop killing people,” and noted in a post on X platform on October 30, 2024: “I want the Middle East to return to real and lasting peace, and we will do it the right way.” This formula, which Trump has frequently used, often conveys an ambiguous stance; he has not specified how the war will be concluded or presented detailed steps in his plan to end it, leading some to question whether his commitments are merely electoral promises.
Implicit Support for Israeli Actions Against Hamas: Another significant theme in Trump’s discourse is his implicit support for Israel’s actions against Hamas. The use of the term “complete the mission” in all his statements directed at Israel evokes interpretations aligned with Netanyahu’s view on the necessity of “eliminating Hamas.” This hypothesis is bolstered by Trump’s approach towards Hamas and its supportive factions; for instance, in a press conference in August 2024, Trump described Palestinian supporters in the U.S. calling for a halt to American support for Israel’s war as “thugs in support of Hamas and sympathizers with extremism.” He even threatened to arrest and deport them from the U.S. if he were to return to the presidency.
Linking War Conclusion to Netanyahu’s Victory: Throughout all his speeches advocating for an end to the war in Gaza, Trump has not expressed an anti-Israel stance; on the contrary, he automatically connects closing the war to Israeli victory. This was explicitly evident in Trump’s remarks during a press conference in August, where he referred to discussions held with Netanyahu during Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. in July 2024, mentioning, “Netanyahu knows what he’s doing; I encouraged him to end the Gaza War quickly, but with victory… Achieve your victory and resolve this issue… it must stop, the killing must cease.”
Debate over a Timeframe for Ending the War: Trump’s approach to the Gaza War sparks an escalating debate over the timeframe for ending it. While he has not disclosed a specific timeline, some reports indicated that Trump told Netanyahu in July 2024 that he wanted to conclude the Gaza War concurrent with his return to the White House in January 2025. This notion of needing to end the war alongside Trump’s assumption of office reflects his desire to achieve a political gain early in his term, denying Biden any opportunity to exit the White House with a favorable image, especially since Biden has been, in one way or another, involved in the Gaza War.
However, this timeframe remains fraught with significant challenges, foremost among them Netanyahu’s own vision and domestic calculations, as well as reaching a final deal with Hamas regarding hostage releases, a matter that Trump is keenly interested in.
- Exploiting Gaza War to Pressure Democrats: Trump has certainly utilized the Gaza War file as a tool to pressure Democrats and their electoral prospects in recent months. He has attacked Biden and Harris’s policies at every opportunity; for example, in August 2024, Trump stated: “From the beginning, Harris has been tying Israel’s hands behind its back, demanding an immediate ceasefire.” In October 2024, during a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Trump criticized Biden, saying: “Biden tells Netanyahu not to do this or that, and Bibi simply ignores his instructions and doesn’t listen to him. You know? Israel has strengthened its position even more compared to what it was three months ago as a result.”
- Talking about a Comprehensive Peace Framework in the Region: In his address to the Lebanese community in the U.S. before the elections, Trump stated on X on October 30, 2024: “Your friends and families in Lebanon deserve to live in peace and prosperity, and that can only happen with peace and stability in the Middle East,” urging the Lebanese community to vote for him for peace. As is customary in Trump’s speeches, the idea of a “comprehensive peace in the region” remains ambiguous at best until he assumes power, causing confusion among many.
Influencing Factors
Beyond the sweeping electoral promises Trump has made, the future of the Gaza War under the new U.S. administration seems linked to several key factors:
Limits of Internal Pressures on Trump to End the War: Just days before the U.S. elections, Trump appeared at an electoral event alongside leaders from American Muslim communities supporting him. This scenario implies an understanding between Trump and some Muslim communities in the U.S. regarding several issues, including the Gaza War, especially since Trump has promised on multiple occasions to end the war quickly upon returning to the White House.
Naturally, this promise will follow Trump following his victory, and some internal forces may escalate their pressures on him to fulfill these promises; for example, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) issued a statement post-election demanding that Trump prioritize fulfilling his electoral pledge to seek peace abroad, which includes ending Israel’s war against besieged Gaza. CAIR National Executive Director Nihad Awad stated, “We expect all elected officials to sincerely address the urgent concerns of Muslim voters. This includes President-elect Trump,” adding, “The president-elect must fulfill his campaign pledge to seek peace abroad, including ending the war on Gaza. However, this must be a true peace based on justice and freedom, and a state for the Palestinian people.”
Netanyahu’s Perspectives on the New U.S. Administration’s Position: Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s perceptions of the new U.S. administration constitute a vital determinant in Trump’s ability to swiftly conclude the war. It is likely that Netanyahu views Trump’s return to the White House with optimism, perhaps expecting further American support. This is evidenced by Netanyahu’s immediate congratulatory message to Trump following the elections, describing his win as “the greatest comeback in history!” and anticipating a “strong commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance under Trump.” Additionally, the personal relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has been particularly strong in recent years, with Netanyahu labeling Trump as “Israel’s best friend.” These perceptions will play a role in Trump’s capacity to end the Gaza War, which is expected to conform to a formula favored by Netanyahu that serves his interests.
These perceptions also invoke positive impressions within Israeli society towards Trump’s victory; a poll conducted before the U.S. elections by the Israeli Democracy Institute and published by the Times of Israel indicated that about 65% of respondents preferred Trump as the next U.S. president. The survey revealed that 72% of Israeli Jews believed Trump’s victory would be more beneficial to Israeli interests, while only 27% of Arab Israelis favored Trump’s win.
Israeli settlers have also shown welcoming attitudes towards Trump’s victory; for example, the main settlers’ council in Yesha announced on November 6, 2024, that they expect Trump to be “an ally who stands by us unconditionally.” This welcoming stance relates to Trump’s policies during his previous term when he worked on plans to integrate settlements in the West Bank as part of Israel.
Continuation of Trump’s Deal-Making Policies: One characteristic often attributed to Trump during his previous presidency is that he is a “deal man,” connected to his business background; his focus is on his interests and gaining something in return for services rendered. It is unlikely that this pattern of policies will diminish during Trump’s new presidency; the Republican president sees that the ongoing war in Gaza adversely affects U.S. economic interests in the region and imposes additional economic costs on Washington, let alone the negative impact on the Israeli economy. From this perspective, Trump will likely push towards ending the war in one way or another.
Hamas’s Stance on Trump’s Victory: Following the announcement of Trump’s election victory, Hamas issued a statement indicating that its position on the new U.S. administration depends on its stances and practical actions towards the Palestinian people and their rights. It added: “In light of the results of the U.S. elections showing Republican candidate Donald Trump winning, the new U.S. administration must understand that the Palestinian people will continue to confront the occupation, and they will not accept any path that undermines their legitimate rights to freedom, independence, self-determination, and the establishment of their independent state with Jerusalem as its capital.”
In this context, Hamas may pursue two paths; one is to continue the conflict with Israel and wait for Trump’s first step in proposing an initiative regarding the war. The other path suggests the movement could announce an initiative to end the war and address the issue of hostages, which would be directed at the Trump administration in an effort to pressure it and perhaps embarrass it into pressing Netanyahu to halt the war.
Impact of Trump’s Legacy on the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Trump’s previous presidency is likely to influence his current calculations regarding the Gaza War; during his first term, Trump provided Israel with broad support, manifested in the relocation of the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Under Trump’s administration, settlements received formal American backing, with the U.S. having declared that it “no longer considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank contrary to international law.” The announcement of the “Deal of the Century” showcased the apex of American support for Israel.
Shortcomings in American and Israeli Visions for Gaza’s Future: Israel entered the Gaza War with an unrealistic goal: completely eliminating Hamas, not just its leadership. However, over a year into the war, it appears that Tel Aviv, backed by Washington, is adrift and lacks a clear plan for the day after in Gaza, or at least possesses unrealistic plans that do not garner regional acceptance, especially from neighboring countries.
This deficiency in American-Israeli vision will place the Trump administration in a state of confusion for some time, allowing for various scenarios to unfold; perhaps Trump will convince Netanyahu to announce—even if nominally—that the war has ended and that a victory has been achieved, while maintaining military activities for the Israeli army within the Strip. Trump may reach an agreement with Netanyahu regarding security arrangements for Gaza while pressing the Palestinian Authority to assume governance of the Strip. It could even escalate to more extreme scenarios involving the evacuation of vast areas in Gaza and the establishment of buffer zones to pressure Palestinians to leave the Strip.
Avoiding a Full-Scale War Between Israel and Iran: Trump has consistently expressed a desire to reduce American military presence abroad, having pushed during his first term to withdraw U.S. troops from various hotspots in the Middle East. This pattern suggests that Trump does not desire a full-scale war between Israel and Iran that would compel direct U.S. intervention to support Israel. According to the previously mentioned deal-making logic, Trump understands that the continuation of the Gaza War would bolster the likelihood of this scenario, negatively impacting Washington’s economic interests and business projects in the region. Therefore, Trump will be keen to avoid being dragged into an uncalculated adventure led by Netanyahu, urging him to avoid such a scenario. Instead of military confrontation, it is likely that Trump will resume his maximum pressure policy on Tehran.
Relative Weights of Trump’s Foreign Policy Advisers: It cannot be overlooked that Trump’s advisers will influence his choices regarding the Gaza War and Middle Eastern issues broadly, but the extent of this influence will be tied to the relative weights of these advisers. Trump’s advisory team includes three main factions, according to Giles Alston, an expert on American affairs at Oxford Analytics: the constrained realists, advocating against excessive ambitions in U.S. foreign goals. This group includes Trump’s vice president, J.D. Vance, and national security analyst Elbridge Colby, who is likely to play a major role in the White House; they prefer to focus American resources on confronting China while expecting allies to bear greater burdens elsewhere. Proponents of this faction argue that Beijing exacerbates conflicts in Ukraine and the Middle East to divert Washington’s attention from confronting China.
The second group promotes a “peace through strength” approach, featuring prominent members such as former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, former National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, and Senator Tom Cotton. While they also seek for U.S. partners to spend more on defense and reduce economic relations with China, they blame weak American leadership for recent wars and international upheavals. Unlike the previous faction, they insist on sustaining U.S. assistance to Ukraine and criticize Biden’s administration for attempting to manage conflicts in Europe and the Middle East rather than seeking victory.
The third faction refers to economic nationalists, with notable figures like former U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. This faction supports imposing stronger sanctions to weaken China, Russia, and Iran, using tariffs and other incentives to redirect more investments to the United States from foreign nations, including U.S. allies.
In conclusion, the Gaza War represents a crucial testing point for the new American administration, which will face complex calculations; Trump is unlikely to retract his broad support for Israel and may continue some plans laid out during his previous presidency. However, on the other hand, he fears the repercussions of the ongoing war in Gaza, which would imply a more tumultuous Middle East, less amenable to further openness between Israel and regional states. Amidst all this, the “deal-making logic” will govern Trump’s maneuvers regarding the Gaza War and the broader Middle East.
