At the conclusion of his visit to the Middle East, President Trump posted on X that “All the countries that have fought for so long will now work together to complete the mission. Gaza is only part of it. The larger part is peace in the Middle East.” Returning to Washington satisfied with his success in securing the release of the hostages and leading a summit of peace-promoting leaders in Egypt, Trump made no secret of his vision to advance a new regional architecture—one based on a significant expansion of the Abraham Accords and the strengthening of regional relations on economic and business foundations.
The next question remains open: Will Trump be able to rekindle the same energy and influence to impose on the parties the implementation of the “second stage” of his plan, a phase still far from being finalized? The crisis surrounding the return of the hostages’ bodies underscores the complexity. Trump, who declared that the war was over and apparently gave Hamas assurances that Israel would not resume fighting, will now need to invest significant diplomatic efforts to address far more difficult issues: dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities, minimizing its influence in Gaza, establishing a multinational monitoring force, and defining the parameters of Israel’s withdrawal.
The impressive summit in Sharm el-Sheikh symbolized regional intent but failed to offer concrete solutions to core issues, especially given the absence of both Hamas and Israel from the table. Behind the declarations of unity and commitment to shaping “the day after” the war lie deep divisions among the participating countries, and certainly between Israel and Hamas, regarding Gaza’s future. Saudi Arabia continues to tie normalization with Israel to meaningful progress on the Palestinian front, while Egypt and Jordan seek to maintain strict security control out of fear of Hamas’s expansion into their territories.
Beyond the humanitarian dimension, Trump views the process as an opportunity to restore American influence to the regional forefront and to make a significant contribution to his broader effort to construct an American–Sunni axis to counter Iran and its proxies. His success in securing the hostages’ release gives him his first diplomatic achievement of his current term, one he is expected to present as proof of his ability to deliver a “big deal,” in contrast to his predecessor’s policy of mere “management.”
Implications for Israel
For Israel, the achievement also presents a complex diplomatic challenge. Trump may demand tangible steps, including a gradual withdrawal from Gaza and the reinstatement of an organized Palestinian governing body in the Strip, alongside an Israeli commitment to refrain from renewed fighting. It remains unclear how and to what extent the demand to disarm Hamas will be addressed, while Israel will be required to continue operating under political and international constraints.
Israel must ensure that the US administration includes it in discussions with regional and international actors on shaping the second stage of the plan.
Israel will need to balance preserving military freedom of action with avoiding friction with Washington, particularly given the possibility that Trump will view rapid diplomatic progress as part of his presidential legacy. Nevertheless, the process could also open a significant opportunity: Expanding the Abraham Accords and enlisting Saudi Arabia in a new regional initiative could create an enhanced security and economic framework, provided Israel navigates carefully between political pressures and its national security needs.
In this sense, Trump’s visit is not just a diplomatic event but a test case for Israel’s policy. Israel will need to craft a balanced approach between security imperatives, international legitimacy, and the future of its relationship with Washington. Beyond the immediate implications for Gaza, these developments could reshape the regional balance of power: If successful, the process will strengthen the pro-American bloc and marginalize Iran; if it fails, Israel may find itself in an even more precarious security position vis-à-vis both Hamas and foreign governments seeking to limit its actions.
At the conclusion of his visit to the Middle East, President Trump posted on X that “All the countries that have fought for so long will now work together to complete the mission. Gaza is only part of it. The larger part is peace in the Middle East.” Returning to Washington satisfied with his success in securing the release of the hostages and leading a summit of peace-promoting leaders in Egypt, Trump made no secret of his vision to advance a new regional architecture—one based on a significant expansion of the Abraham Accords and the strengthening of regional relations on economic and business foundations.
The next question remains open: Will Trump be able to rekindle the same energy and influence to impose on the parties the implementation of the “second stage” of his plan, a phase still far from being finalized? The crisis surrounding the return of the hostages’ bodies underscores the complexity. Trump, who declared that the war was over and apparently gave Hamas assurances that Israel would not resume fighting, will now need to invest significant diplomatic efforts to address far more difficult issues: dismantling Hamas’s military capabilities, minimizing its influence in Gaza, establishing a multinational monitoring force, and defining the parameters of Israel’s withdrawal.
The impressive summit in Sharm el-Sheikh symbolized regional intent but failed to offer concrete solutions to core issues, especially given the absence of both Hamas and Israel from the table. Behind the declarations of unity and commitment to shaping “the day after” the war lie deep divisions among the participating countries, and certainly between Israel and Hamas, regarding Gaza’s future. Saudi Arabia continues to tie normalization with Israel to meaningful progress on the Palestinian front, while Egypt and Jordan seek to maintain strict security control out of fear of Hamas’s expansion into their territories.
Beyond the humanitarian dimension, Trump views the process as an opportunity to restore American influence to the regional forefront and to make a significant contribution to his broader effort to construct an American–Sunni axis to counter Iran and its proxies. His success in securing the hostages’ release gives him his first diplomatic achievement of his current term, one he is expected to present as proof of his ability to deliver a “big deal,” in contrast to his predecessor’s policy of mere “management.”
Implications for Israel
For Israel, the achievement also presents a complex diplomatic challenge. Trump may demand tangible steps, including a gradual withdrawal from Gaza and the reinstatement of an organized Palestinian governing body in the Strip, alongside an Israeli commitment to refrain from renewed fighting. It remains unclear how and to what extent the demand to disarm Hamas will be addressed, while Israel will be required to continue operating under political and international constraints.
Israel must ensure that the US administration includes it in discussions with regional and international actors on shaping the second stage of the plan.
Israel will need to balance preserving military freedom of action with avoiding friction with Washington, particularly given the possibility that Trump will view rapid diplomatic progress as part of his presidential legacy. Nevertheless, the process could also open a significant opportunity: Expanding the Abraham Accords and enlisting Saudi Arabia in a new regional initiative could create an enhanced security and economic framework, provided Israel navigates carefully between political pressures and its national security needs.
In this sense, Trump’s visit is not just a diplomatic event but a test case for Israel’s policy. Israel will need to craft a balanced approach between security imperatives, international legitimacy, and the future of its relationship with Washington. Beyond the immediate implications for Gaza, these developments could reshape the regional balance of power: If successful, the process will strengthen the pro-American bloc and marginalize Iran; if it fails, Israel may find itself in an even more precarious security position vis-à-vis both Hamas and foreign governments seeking to limit its actions.