The peace frequently mentioned by the American administration is still something we must wait for. What is now needed is a clear vision and a joint effort by regional actors under strong leadership, which would make peace achievable in the future.
The rapid pace of events in early October demonstrates another shift in the approach to ending the war in the Gaza Strip. In the twenty-point peace plan for Gaza, the US administration has created a path to reach an agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. These conditions primarily include the withdrawal of the Israeli forces to the mutually agreed-upon line, the return of hostages and prisoners, and the allowance of international aid to enter the territory, among other measures. Ultimately, the primary objective is to achieve the long-awaited peace and stability in the Middle East, which is promoted not only by the Middle Eastern states but also by the international community. However, the conditions included in the plan are not fully respected – Hamas and Israeli forces exchange fire, the victims of which are the citizens of the Gaza Strip. Moreover, the 2025 Gaza Peace Summit, which took place in Sharm el-Sheikh, gathered representatives from over twenty states, although neither Hamas nor Israel was present. As Al-Jazeera reports, President Donald Trump assumes that the Abraham Accords may include new members in the future, which, in consequence, could affect the future shape of the regional order. Is this the moment that will eventually ensure peace and stability in the region? With remaining issues to be resolved, the future might seem uncertain. Cooperation in security matters and joint regional efforts are necessary to achieve this vision.
Gaza Peace Plan in Brief
The plan prepared by the U.S. administration urges both sides to comply with the conditions included. It addresses the following issues:
-
- Cessation of military operations
- The release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners, and detained Gazans
- Delivery of humanitarian aid
- Establishment of a “temporary transitional governance of a technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee”. It is expected to include Palestinian and international experts and be overseen by the “Board of Peace” led by President Trump and other members. The purpose is to manage public services and municipalities for the residents of Gaza by the time the Palestinian Authority completes its reforms in accordance with President Trump’s peace plan, presented in 2020, and the proposal prepared by Saudi Arabia and France
- Reconstruction of the Gaza Strip with the participation of international actors
- Demilitarization of the Gaza Strip and Hamas and other groups’ exclusion from the governance of the area, with their approval
- Establishment of the temporary International Stabilization Force as a means of ensuring security in the Strip, in cooperation with Israeli and Egyptian forces
- The future of Israel’s policy towards the Strip
- Realizing the aspirations of Palestinians in self-determination and statehood
- The United States’ participation in establishing bilateral dialogue between the Palestinians and Israel.
Al Jazeera outlined three stages of implementing President Trump’s Gaza peace plan. The first phase began with the release of hostages and prisoners, but this stage is not yet complete. The second phase focuses on ensuring internal security and involves establishing the International Stabilization Force. In the last phase, the Israeli forces are expected to withdraw to the designated line, and the buffer zone is to be established.
The Future of the Region from Today’s Perspective
During his recent visit to Israel, the U.S. President delivered a speech in the Knesset outlining his vision for the Middle East following the release of his peace plan. He also addressed the evolving regional order. The President stated that the Abraham Accords, which aim to normalize relations between Israel and several Arab nations, will be expanded, thus new countries may join the agreement. Currently, it is challenging to assess whether these will actually be extended. As past events demonstrate, Middle Eastern states such as Saudi Arabia have delayed signing these agreements, which reinforces the uncertainty surrounding further actions and decisions.
However, it is too early to speak about peace in the region. Each phase requires an appropriate amount of time to be successfully accomplished. It is important to note that previous ceasefires have not been sustainable, and the current one is being breached, which raises concerns about its durability. This should encourage the parties participating in the process to oversee the implementation of the plan and prevent further destabilization. Additionally, some issues require further clarification, particularly regarding the future of the two-state solution.
What dominates the U.S. foreign strategy under Trump’s administration is a combination of assertiveness and coercion that together fall within the realist paradigm. The President is also aiming to fulfill the promises of his election campaign, including ending ongoing military conflicts, which is intended to mark his achievements during his presidency. When it comes to the Middle East, initially, we observed pressure being applied to particular regional actors, and now we are discussing a vision of peace that remains rather distant from actual implementation. Genuine peace cannot be discussed unless the existing dilemmas are addressed. Today, dialogue, as a diplomatic tool, is crucial because it engages Middle Eastern players, which is necessary for building the foundations of regional security. The question remains whether one should agree either to a revision of the current order or the status quo – each state has its own vision of what the existing order should look like.
President Trump has strengthened his alliances with the Arab Gulf states in strategic fields; however, the events in Qatar have affected trust between the US and these sheikhdoms. Despite this, the intended deeper military cooperation that results from the talks held after the Doha attacks indicates the unchanged position of the US towards the region, and the Gulf in particular. This highlights Washington’s role as the most important guarantor of security, especially in the Gulf. No other state is expected to replace the U.S. as a military power in the coming decades. These relationships are particularly crucial in the international context, where great powers compete. For Trump’s administration, other challenges await, among which is finding a solution to the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
Each actor in the Middle East plays a significant role, and together, they are capable of contributing to building regional stability. It is necessary to note that, from a realistic point of view, any disruption in the regional balance of power could lead to the emergence of new challenges. The Middle East relies on the United States, and conversely, the United States needs the Middle East. However, as new threats may arise and the possibility of forming new partnerships between the Middle Eastern countries and other major powers becomes more viable, these would send a warning signal to the U.S., informing it of the growing challenges to maintaining its key position in the region.
