The announcement regarding the Gaza agreement has been hailed as a significant diplomatic achievement for President Donald Trump, who utilized his influence to mediate between the conflicting parties after extensive regional mediation efforts.
This success has generated widespread approval from various sectors of the American political landscape, with former President Joe Biden praising the completed work and commending the “efforts of President Trump and his team in accomplishing the ceasefire deal,” also recognizing his administration’s attempts to end the conflict.
Former Vice President Kamala Harris also commented on the agreement, labeling it as “an important first step towards a more hopeful future” in the region.
For Trump, the military phase has concluded, as he has repeatedly asserted that “the war is over,” stating in Israel that “Israel, with our help, has won everything it could gain through military might.”
These statements intended to reassure regional nations that Washington would not allow Israel to reopen hostilities or permit Hamas to reestablish its military capabilities. Trump’s pressure was evident in compelling Prime Minister Netanyahu to accept the agreement, even against the wishes of some allied right-wing extremists.
Trump’s deal has created a pronounced divide within the Republican Party, moving beyond traditional consensus. Opinions have branched into two main factions: one group views the deal as a “historic achievement” reinforcing Trump’s status as a prominent peace broker, applauding his ability to enforce the truce.
Notable supporters of this faction include former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who referred to the agreement as “an extraordinary moment.”
The second, more hardline faction fears that the incomplete details of Trump’s plan might undermine Israel’s long-term security, despite their support for his approach of urging Arab states to shoulder the financial burden.
Trump’s vision for Gaza peace hinges on investment and economic development, asserting that the United States would not absorb the “massive” reconstruction costs.
The plan calls for regional partners to take on this financial responsibility, estimated to exceed $30 billion.
To manage this process, Trump proposed the establishment of a “Peace Council,” which he would chair, to oversee development and potentially create a “special economic zone.” This approach seeks to use economic development as a lever for political stability but also includes stringent military guarantees to prevent Hamas from undermining the process.
Political Divide
On the Democratic side, while the ceasefire was welcomed, former diplomats like Dan Shapiro warned that the current administration may have overly emphasized Israeli-Arab normalization while significantly downplaying the path to a Palestinian state.
Shapiro indicated that any American retreat from supporting a two-state solution “could reduce the incentive for regional nations to pressure Hamas to adhere to the agreement.”
Analysts in Washington have noted a major regional challenge that could threaten the sustainability of Trump’s plan: the Iranian factor; they assert that any peace will remain fragile and might fall apart unless a new and comprehensive American strategy to address Tehran’s influence is implemented.
The disarmament of Hamas remains the most challenging and ambiguous aspect of Trump’s plan, which stipulates the destruction of “all military and terrorist infrastructure” and guarantees that it will not be rebuilt, emphasizing an international funding program for “repurchasing” weapons.
Experts at research institutions contend that the long-term viability of the agreement heavily relies on the international community’s capability to achieve this; however, the greatest challenge lies in the fact that this disarmament remains a goal that Hamas rejects, creating risks for the deal if the group fails to meet these conditions.
Analyst John Alterman noted, “It’s hard to recall an international agreement that left so many details to be resolved later.” Additionally, the proposed establishment of an “international stabilization force” remains unclear, as no nation has yet committed troops, amidst demands for a United Nations Security Council mandate.
Cracks began to surface in the agreement after its announcement, particularly concerning the issue of hostages’ remains.
This lack of commitment, along with the views of hardline Israeli politicians such as Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who believes “only military pressure can return the hostages,” raises concerns within diplomatic circles that there may not be enough time to solidify the “greatest deal” before its potential collapse.