- Trump brokered a tactical pause in Gaza fighting but did not resolve the fundamental strategic competition between Israel and Hamas
- Phase Two negotiations face near-certain collapse over Hamas disarmament and governance transition, threatening ceasefire breakdown within weeks or months
- The international stabilization force remains in preparatory stages with major deployment obstacles, despite being a real proposal under negotiation
President Donald Trump insists the Gaza ceasefire is holding. Standing aboard Air Force One after Israeli strikes killed dozens of Palestinians on Sunday, Trump declared the truce intact despite mutual accusations of violations between Israel and Hamas. "The war is over," he told reporters with characteristic certainty. The question is whether Trump's confidence matches the strategic reality on the ground—or whether he's mistaking a tactical pause for a genuine resolution of incompatible war aims.
Ten days into the ceasefire brokered by Trump's team in early October, the agreement faces its first serious stress test. Israeli forces launched strikes across Gaza on Sunday after Hamas militants allegedly killed two Israeli soldiers near Rafah, beyond the "yellow line" marking Israel's agreed withdrawal boundary. Hamas denied involvement, claiming it had lost contact with fighters in southern Gaza for months. Israel's Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that any Hamas presence beyond the line would be "a target for attack without further warning." The exchange encapsulates the fundamental problem: both sides retain the capability and, more importantly, the strategic incentive to resume hostilities.
The ceasefire's immediate trigger was tactical exhaustion, not strategic resolution. After two years of grinding warfare that killed over 67,000 Palestinians and devastated Gaza's infrastructure, both Israel and Hamas faced mounting costs. For Israel, international isolation accelerated as key allies recognized Palestinian statehood in September, and domestic pressure intensified with polls showing two-thirds of Israelis wanting the war to end. For Hamas, Israel's renewed offensive into Gaza City in late September threatened to eliminate its last leverage: the hostages. Agreeing to Phase One—releasing all living captives—forestalled that operation while preserving Hamas's position in subsequent negotiations.
Trump's role was significant but not transformative. His administration applied pressure at a moment when both parties were looking for an exit ramp. Special envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner shuttled between capitals, leveraging Trump's relationships with Gulf states to create unified Arab pressure on Hamas while simultaneously threatening Israel with reduced support if Netanyahu rejected the deal. The breakthrough came after Israel's catastrophic strike on Doha targeting Hamas negotiators—a violation of Qatari sovereignty that enraged a key U.S. partner and gave Trump the leverage to force Netanyahu into concessions. But leverage is not the same as resolving underlying conflicts of interest.
REVEALED: The hidden calculations behind Israel and Hamas's fragile compliance—and the exact moment both sides could abandon the ceasefire for strategic advantage.
The implementation gap between rhetoric and reality
The gap between Trump's rhetoric and the reality of implementation is widest in the plan's most critical provisions: Hamas disarmament, Gaza's governance transition, and the deployment of an international stabilization force. Each represents not merely a technical challenge but a fundamental conflict of strategic interests that no amount of presidential salesmanship can bridge.
Consider the disarmament question. Trump's 20-point plan calls for "demilitarization of Gaza under the supervision of independent monitors" and the destruction of "all military, terror and offensive infrastructure." It proposes a weapons buyback program and independent verification. These provisions sound reasonable in a White House press release. They are fantasy when confronted with Gaza's reality. Hamas has spent two decades building its military infrastructure precisely to survive scenarios like this. The group's weapons are dispersed, hidden, and embedded in civilian areas. Its tunnel network extends hundreds of miles underground, far beyond the reach of any monitoring regime Hamas doesn't actively support.
More fundamentally, Hamas has no strategic incentive to disarm. The group's entire political legitimacy rests on its claim to resist Israeli occupation through armed struggle. Disarmament would mean handing power to the Palestinian Authority—a Fatah-dominated entity that Hamas views as a corrupt collaborator with Israel and that has minimal popular support in Gaza. No Hamas leader can accept this outcome and survive politically within the organization. The group will therefore delay, claim it needs more time to locate weapons, and ultimately refuse to comply with provisions that would end its existence as a political-military force.
The governance transition faces similar obstacles. Trump's plan envisions a "temporary transitional government" of Palestinian technocrats supervised by an international "Board of Peace" chaired by Trump himself, with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair in a central role. This structure would eventually hand power to a reformed Palestinian Authority. It's an elegant solution on paper that ignores the basic reality that governance requires not just administrative capacity but the monopoly on legitimate violence. Who will enforce the technocrats' decisions? Who will prevent Hamas from reasserting control once international attention fades? The plan provides no answers because there are no good answers.
The international stabilization force—outlined in Trump's peace plan and involving proposed contributions from Egypt, Qatar, and the UAE, with about 200 U.S. military personnel in coordination roles outside Gaza—remains in preparatory stages with significant obstacles to deployment. While the force is a real proposal being actively negotiated, its implementation faces critical challenges: no Arab state will deploy troops to disarm Hamas without either the group's consent (which won't be given) or a clear U.S. commitment to long-term military engagement (which Trump won't provide). Israel has already ruled out Turkish participation, limiting potential contributors. The 200 U.S. troops are described as "monitors" with expertise in logistics and engineering working through Central Command, not combat forces deployed inside Gaza. They will observe and coordinate, not enforce. The force's mandate remains deliberately vague because specifying it would expose the gap between the plan's ambitions and the resources committed to achieving them.
Trump's broader claim to have brokered multiple ceasefire agreements in recent months reveals the same pattern of conflating tactical pauses with strategic victories. Among the cases cited—Armenia-Azerbaijan, Democratic Republic of Congo-Rwanda, Israel-Iran, India-Pakistan, Cambodia-Thailand, Egypt-Ethiopia, and Serbia-Kosovo—Trump's role varies significantly. In some instances, his administration applied meaningful pressure to facilitate agreements; in others, his involvement is disputed or the underlying conflicts remain unresolved. The characterization of these interventions as "ending wars" significantly overstates both the extent and permanence of conflict resolution achieved. In each case, Trump leveraged U.S. economic or military power to pressure parties into signing agreements. In no case did he fundamentally alter the underlying strategic dynamics that caused the conflict.
EXPOSED: Three detailed scenarios for Gaza's future—including the 'managed collapse' timeline intelligence analysts believe is already underway.
The broader pattern of Trump's "war-ending" claims
Trump's assertions about facilitating multiple ceasefire agreements in recent months reveal the same disconnect between tactical achievement and strategic resolution visible in Gaza. Among the cases frequently cited—Armenia-Azerbaijan, Democratic Republic of Congo-Rwanda, Israel-Iran, India-Pakistan, Cambodia-Thailand, Egypt-Ethiopia, and Serbia-Kosovo—each demonstrates Trump's ability to apply pressure and broker agreements, though the characterization of these interventions as "ending wars" significantly overstates both their extent and permanence. Many represent ceasefires or temporary pauses rather than full conflict resolutions, and in some cases Trump's role is disputed or the conflicts never escalated to actual warfare.
The Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement, signed at the White House in August, is perhaps the most substantive. The two former Soviet republics finalized a peace deal ending nearly four decades of conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. Trump deserves credit for hosting the signing and for the agreement's provision creating the "Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity"—a transit corridor linking Azerbaijan with its Nakhichevan exclave through Armenian territory. But the deal remains unratified by either country, and Azerbaijan demands Armenia change its constitution to remove territorial claims, a requirement likely to be rejected in a referendum. The underlying strategic competition continues.
The Democratic Republic of Congo-Rwanda agreement, also signed in Washington in June, has produced no reduction in violence. CNN reporters visiting the rebel-held city of Goma in September found militia groups still training fighters and engaging in daily combat. The M23 rebel group, backed by Rwanda, controls eastern Congo's mineral-rich territories and has no intention of disarming. The group's leader, Corneille Nangaa, told CNN his forces plan to march on Kinshasa to overthrow President Felix Tshisekedi. Neither M23 nor its Rwandan backers were party to the Washington agreement, which means the deal addresses the conflict's diplomatic surface while ignoring its military reality.
The India-Pakistan case illustrates how Trump's claims can be directly contradicted by the parties involved. After a brief May escalation over Kashmir, Trump announced he had mediated a ceasefire following "a long night of talks." Pakistan thanked him for his role. India flatly denied any U.S. involvement, with Foreign Secretary Vikram Misri stating the ceasefire was reached "directly between India and Pakistan" with no American mediation. India's Defense Minister later said military operations stopped because India had achieved its objectives, not because of external pressure. The contradiction matters because it reveals Trump's tendency to claim credit for outcomes he may not have influenced—a pattern that undermines the credibility of his other claims.
The Cambodia-Thailand ceasefire, announced in July after Trump threatened to cancel trade negotiations, has been violated multiple times. In September, Thai police used tear gas and rubber bullets against Cambodian protesters who crossed the disputed border, injuring dozens. Thailand subsequently voted to indefinitely close the border and impose Thai law on Cambodians living in disputed areas. The underlying territorial dispute over 1,000-year-old Hindu temples remains unresolved. Trump's intervention produced a tactical pause, not a strategic settlement.
The Egypt-Ethiopia case reveals the limits of Trump's claims most starkly. The two countries dispute Ethiopia's Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Nile, which Egypt claims threatens its water supply. Talks have been stalled for over a year with no agreement in sight. There was no actual war between the countries to end—only a long-running diplomatic dispute. Trump's suggestion that he prevented Egypt from bombing the dam lacks supporting evidence; Ethiopian officials denied U.S. funding of the dam and rejected Trump's assertions, and there is no indication that such a bombing attempt was imminent or that Trump's intervention prevented it. The dispute remains primarily diplomatic and unresolved.
The Nobel Prize obsession and what it reveals
Trump's transparent desire for the Nobel Peace Prize—he has mentioned it repeatedly, complained about not receiving it, and encouraged allies to nominate him—provides insight into his approach to foreign policy. The prize represents international validation and historical legacy, two things Trump craves. More importantly, it would place him in the company of his predecessor Barack Obama, who won the prize in 2009, a fact that clearly rankles Trump. "They gave it to Obama. He didn't even know what he got it for," Trump said in 2019. "With me, I probably will never get it."
The timing of Trump's Gaza peace push—culminating just before the October 10 announcement of the 2025 Nobel laureate—was almost certainly not coincidental. Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado ultimately won the prize, a decision Trump criticized while claiming Machado had told him she was "accepting this in honor of you because you really deserved it." Whether or not that conversation occurred as Trump described, his need to claim credit is revealing.
The Nobel obsession matters because it shapes Trump's approach to conflict resolution. He seeks dramatic announcements and signing ceremonies—moments that generate headlines and photo opportunities—rather than the patient, unglamorous work of implementation. He values speed over sustainability, claiming he resolved conflicts "within a day" as if rapid dealmaking were itself a measure of success. He personalizes diplomacy, believing his relationships with foreign leaders and his willingness to threaten or cajole can overcome structural obstacles. And he defines success as getting parties to sign agreements, regardless of whether those agreements address the underlying sources of conflict or create mechanisms for sustainable peace.
This approach can produce tactical wins. Trump's willingness to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities helped end the June Israel-Iran escalation more quickly than might otherwise have occurred. His threat to cancel trade negotiations pushed Cambodia and Thailand toward a ceasefire. His pressure on Netanyahu, combined with unified Arab support, created the conditions for the Gaza agreement. But tactical wins are not strategic victories, and confusing the two is dangerous.
The fundamental problem is that Trump treats complex geopolitical conflicts as if they were real estate negotiations where the right combination of pressure and incentives can always produce a deal. But international conflicts often involve parties with incompatible objectives where no mutually acceptable compromise exists. Israel and Hamas both claim exclusive rights to territory and governance. Their conflict is zero-sum in ways that defy dealmaking. Armenia and Azerbaijan both claim Nagorno-Karabakh. India and Pakistan both claim Kashmir. These are not disputes over the terms of coexistence but competitions over who gets to exist in contested spaces.
Sustainable peace requires either one side decisively defeating the other (as Azerbaijan did in Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, creating the conditions for the subsequent agreement) or both sides concluding that continued conflict is more costly than accepting an imperfect compromise. Trump's interventions can sometimes accelerate that calculation by raising the costs of continued fighting or offering benefits for peace. But they cannot substitute for the underlying strategic shift that makes peace possible.
What comes next: The Phase Two negotiations that will determine everything
The Gaza ceasefire's fate will be determined in the Phase Two negotiations that Trump claims have "already started." These talks must address the issues both sides have carefully avoided in Phase One: Hamas disarmament, Israeli withdrawal from all of Gaza, governance arrangements, and the long-term political status of Palestinians. Each issue presents opportunities for breakdown.
Hamas has already signaled it will not disarm voluntarily. The group's October 3 statement accepting "parts" of Trump's plan conspicuously omitted any commitment to give up weapons or cede governance. Senior Hamas official Osama Hamdan told reporters that a "formal declaration" ending the war must precede any further concessions—language suggesting Hamas views Phase One as the extent of its obligations. Israel, meanwhile, has made clear it will not accept Hamas's continued military or political control. Defense Minister Katz's instruction to prepare plans to "defeat Hamas" if negotiations fail represents the Israeli government's bottom line.
The withdrawal question is equally fraught. Trump's plan envisions three phases of Israeli withdrawal, ultimately reducing Israel's presence to a 15% security perimeter until Gaza is deemed "secure" from terrorist threats. But who determines when Gaza is secure? Israel will argue that Hamas's continued existence—even in a weakened state—means Gaza remains a threat. Hamas will argue that any Israeli military presence constitutes occupation. The definition of "security" is itself a matter of strategic competition, not technical assessment.
Gaza's governance presents perhaps the most intractable challenge. The Palestinian Authority, which Trump's plan envisions eventually taking control, is deeply unpopular in both the West Bank and Gaza. Recent polls show overwhelming Palestinian opposition to PA President Mahmoud Abbas, who is 89 years old and has not faced voters since 2005. The PA is widely viewed as corrupt, ineffective, and subordinate to Israeli security interests. Installing the PA in Gaza without popular legitimacy would require external military force to maintain—precisely the long-term commitment no outside power is willing to make.
Netanyahu has already rejected PA governance in Gaza, stating explicitly in his September 29 White House appearance that he opposes Palestinian statehood and criticizing countries that have recognized Palestine. His coalition partners—particularly far-right ministers like Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich—view any Palestinian governance in Gaza as unacceptable. They prefer either continued Israeli military control or the territory's annexation. Netanyahu's political survival depends on keeping these ministers in his coalition, which means he cannot accept provisions of Phase Two that they oppose, regardless of U.S. pressure.
The reconstruction question adds another layer of complexity. The World Bank estimates Gaza reconstruction will cost at least $53 billion. Trump has claimed "numerous wealthy countries" are ready to fund rebuilding, but no commitments have been announced. Gulf states—the most likely funders—have made clear their contributions depend on progress toward Palestinian statehood, which Israel rejects. Without funding, reconstruction cannot proceed. Without reconstruction, Gaza remains uninhabitable, creating conditions for renewed conflict.
The realist's assessment: What Trump actually achieved
Stripping away the rhetoric, Trump's achievement in Gaza is this: he used U.S. leverage to create a tactical pause in a conflict where both sides were ready to suspend fighting, at least temporarily. He did so by combining pressure on Israel (threatening reduced support), pressure on Hamas (through unified Arab states demanding acceptance), and personal engagement with regional leaders who value their relationships with Washington. The result is a ceasefire that has so far prevented further large-scale casualties and allowed the return of Israeli hostages—outcomes that are genuinely valuable, particularly for the hostages' families and for Gaza's civilian population.
But Trump has not resolved the strategic competition between Israel and Hamas. He has not created conditions for sustainable Palestinian governance. He has not addressed the underlying drivers of the conflict: competing claims to territory, the absence of Palestinian statehood, Israel's security concerns, and Hamas's ideological commitment to armed resistance. He has not built the institutional mechanisms—international forces, governance structures, verification regimes—that would be necessary to implement his plan's more ambitious provisions. And he has not demonstrated the sustained engagement that would be required to navigate the difficult Phase Two negotiations.
What Trump has done is create an opportunity. If his administration remains engaged, if it applies consistent pressure on both parties, if it works with regional partners to build the capacity for governance and security, and if it accepts that success means incremental progress over months and years rather than dramatic announcements, then the ceasefire could evolve into something more durable. The Armenia-Azerbaijan agreement, despite its flaws, shows that Trump's interventions can sometimes produce meaningful outcomes when backed by sustained effort.
But Trump's track record suggests he will declare victory and move on. His attention span for complex policy implementation is limited. His interest lies in the announcement, not the follow-through. His team lacks the diplomatic expertise and bureaucratic capacity for sustained engagement—a problem exacerbated by his administration's gutting of the State Department and USAID. And his transactional approach to foreign policy means he will likely shift focus to other priorities—Ukraine, China, domestic issues—once the initial Gaza headlines fade.
The strategic reality is that ceasefires are easy; peace is hard. Stopping the shooting requires only that both sides conclude fighting is currently against their interests. Building sustainable peace requires changing the underlying strategic calculations that made conflict attractive in the first place. Trump has achieved the former. Whether he can achieve the latter remains to be seen, but the evidence from his other ceasefire agreements suggests skepticism is warranted.
For now, the ceasefire holds because it serves the immediate interests of Israel, Hamas, and the Trump administration. How long those interests remain aligned will determine whether Trump's Gaza deal becomes a genuine achievement or just another tactical pause in an endless conflict. The realist's bet is on the latter.
Subscribe to our free newsletter to unlock direct links to all sources used in this article.
We believe you deserve to verify everything we write. That's why we meticulously document every source.
