Can Trump broker peace in war-torn Middle East? Analysis by Foreign Policy

The Israel-Hamas conflict in Gaza has entered its third year, surpassing all previous confrontations in duration and devastation, and U.S. policymakers are once again confronted with the perennial challenge of peacemaking in the Middle East. A new 20-point peace plan unveiled by President Donald Trump on September 29 represents his most direct engagement yet, with the president positioning himself as chairman of a “peace board” tasked with overseeing implementation. Yet, as Foreign Policy observes, the plan faces monumental hurdles, and the realities on the ground cast doubt on its potential for success.

Trump’s plan is unprecedented in its scope, outlining steps for ending the war, releasing hostages, managing Gaza’s postwar governance, and even pursuing Palestinian statehood contingent on reform. While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears pleased that the plan aligns with his security cabinet’s principles, Hamas is left with little beyond the bitter pill of defeat, disarmament, and removal from power.

Historically, such proposals have prompted “yes, but” responses, which allow parties to signal agreement while delaying or circumventing substantive concessions—a pattern seen in the Clinton parameters of 2000 and the Bush roadmap in 2003. The article underscores that even the plan’s most immediate actions, such as hostage release and Israeli withdrawal within 72 hours, hinge on mutual trust that is conspicuously absent.

Foreign Policy highlights the strategic backdrop that informs Trump’s initiative: Israel now enjoys “escalation dominance” for the first time in its history, exercising unprecedented freedom to strike across Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen with U.S. support.

While this gives Israel operational superiority and deterrence leverage, it also underscores a key paradox—the nation’s military successes, while crippling its adversaries, come at the cost of U.S. resources and occasional friction with American interests and values. This asymmetric empowerment reinforces the challenge of brokering a settlement, as Israel is operationally dominant but politically constrained in achieving a negotiated peace.

The article further situates the conflict within the broader regional context, noting that external powers—including the U.S., European states, and Arab allies—have historically failed to shape the course of the war. Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other actors have demonstrated resilience despite repeated setbacks, while Israel has survived challenges to its strategic position.

Even as parts of Lebanon and Syria show signs of cautious pragmatism, with security negotiations and political openings, key obstacles remain—particularly in constraining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and addressing Israel-Palestine issues post-October 7, 2023.

Foreign Policy concludes that Trump’s engagement is both more exposed and risk-laden than any prior U.S. effort. The president faces limited leverage over Hamas, scarce political will to rein in Netanyahu if necessary, and a volatile regional landscape lacking reliable partners.

While a successful resolution may seem improbable, the article suggests that the Trump plan—however flawed—represents a rare, high-profile attempt to shift the Middle East from entrenched despair toward a framework that, at least theoretically, could foster hope.

By Vugar Khalilov