The recent announcement of a Gaza agreement has been hailed as a significant diplomatic victory for President Donald Trump, who has leveraged his influence to convene the conflicting parties following extensive Arab and regional mediation efforts.
This achievement has garnered praise from various segments of the American political landscape. Former President Joe Biden commended the deal, recognizing the efforts of “President Trump and his team in securing a ceasefire,” while noting his administration’s endeavors to conclude the ongoing conflict.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also commented on the agreement, labeling it as “a crucial first step towards a more hopeful future” for the region.
For Trump, the military phase is evidently over. He has repeatedly asserted that “the war has ended,” stating in Israel that “with our assistance, Israel has gained everything possible through military might.”
The intent behind these remarks was to reassure regional nations that Washington would not permit Israel to reignite the conflict or allow Hamas to re-establish its military capabilities. Trump’s pressure was evident in his ability to persuade Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept the deal, despite opposition from some members of his far-right coalition.
The agreement has notably divided the Republican Party, challenging the traditional consensus. Opinions have split into two main factions: the first views the deal as a “historic achievement” solidifying Trump’s status as a significant peacemaker, praising his ability to enforce the ceasefire.
Notable supporters of this view include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who referred to the agreement as “an extraordinary moment.”
The second, more conservative faction, fears that the incomplete details of Trump’s plan may ultimately weaken Israel’s long-term security posture, even while they support Trump’s call for Arab nations to shoulder the financial responsibility.
Trump’s vision for peace in Gaza hinges on investment and economic development, emphasizing that the U.S. will not bear the “massive” costs of reconstruction.
The plan calls for regional partners to assume a financial burden estimated at over $30 billion.
To manage this process, Trump proposed the creation of a “Peace Council,” which he would lead to oversee development and potentially establish a “special economic zone.” This approach aims to utilize economic development as a lever for political stability but also includes stringent military guarantees to prevent Hamas from undermining the process.
Political Divisions
On the Democratic side, while there is support for the ceasefire, former diplomats like Dan Shapiro caution that the current administration may be overemphasizing Israeli-Arab normalization at the expense of prioritizing pathways to a Palestinian state.
Shapiro emphasized that any reduction in American commitment to a two-state solution could diminish the incentive for regional countries to pressure Hamas to adhere to the agreement.
Analysts in Washington also highlight a major regional challenge that could threaten the sustainability of Trump’s plan: Iranian influence. They assert that any peace achieved will remain fragile and vulnerable to collapse unless a new and comprehensive U.S. strategy is devised to address Tehran’s role.
The disarmament of Hamas is arguably the most challenging and ambiguous aspect of Trump’s plan. The proposal demands the dismantling of “all military and terrorist infrastructures” and ensures that they are “not rebuilt,” referencing an international financing program for “buying back” weapons.
Experts at research institutions stress that the durability of the agreement heavily relies on the international community’s ability to achieve this goal, but the biggest hurdle remains that disarmament is a condition that Hamas categorically rejects, threatening to derail the agreement if the group fails to comply.
Expert John Alterman pointed out, “It’s hard to recall an international agreement that left so many details to be resolved later.” The proposed formation of an “International Stability Force” is still vague, with no nation yet committing to send troops, amid calls for a mandate from the United Nations Security Council.
Cracks in the agreement began to appear following its announcement, particularly concerning the issue of hostages’ remains.
This lack of commitment, along with beliefs from hardline Israeli politicians like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who asserts that “only military pressure can bring back the hostages,” has raised diplomatic concerns that there may be insufficient time to solidify the “greatest deal” before it collapses.