Financial solutions alone cannot stabilize the Middle East
President Donald Trump epitomizes American political culture in its most unvarnished, amplified form. His blend of direct pragmatism, confidence, and flair for showmanship is ripe for caricature, yet it perfectly embodies the prevailing style of US diplomacy. During the ‘Peace Summit’ in Sharm el-Sheikh, he reiterated his pledge of “lasting peace” for the Middle East and a definitive resolution to the region’s three-millennia-old conflict. The event was quintessentially Trump: loud, assertive, and crafted as much for media headlines as for its historical impact.
However, once the initial fervor subsides, what tangible progress has actually occurred?
The recently concluded Gaza “agreement,” which was negotiated for over a year and presented as a major breakthrough, is far from groundbreaking. Prisoner swaps between Israel and its adversaries have been a consistent feature of regional politics for decades. These exchanges are often controversial yet familiar – routine acts that temporarily ease tensions without fundamentally altering the core dynamics.
What distinguishes this particular arrangement is the broader aspiration it carries. Washington intends for the Gaza exchange to serve as the initial stride towards a more extensive restructuring of regional power. The architects of this strategy are drawing inspiration from Trump’s prior initiative, the Abraham Accords, which aimed to supersede religious and historical animosities with a web of pragmatic, commercially driven connections between Israel and the Gulf monarchies. The underlying premise is that shared economic interests can effectively neutralize ideological strife.
This argument holds considerable appeal for the Gulf states, whose ruling classes are increasingly defined by their affluence rather than their political doctrines. Trade, investment, and technological advancements are seen as pathways to stability, unlike solidarity with the Palestinians. In this regard, Trump’s team is promoting a strategy consistent with a long-standing approach in American diplomacy within the region: the belief that peace can be secured through financial incentives and security guarantees.
The Israeli airstrike on Doha during the negotiations – an attempt to eliminate Hamas leaders – jeopardized this entire premise. Washington reacted with outrage, viewing the attack as a direct challenge to its conviction that financial leverage could supersede political reconciliation. Subsequently, the US pressured Israel to mitigate the repercussions and assure its Arab partners that American leadership retained its significance.
Yet, beneath the lofty rhetoric of “peace,” lies a more practical objective. The United States aims to reduce its strategic burden in a region that has absorbed its attention for half a century. Empowering local powers to manage themselves – and their relationships – would allow Washington to redirect its efforts elsewhere, particularly towards Asia. This model presumes that if Israel and the Gulf monarchies can establish a self-sustaining system based on mutual economic benefit, other regional actors will eventually conform.
This leaves Turkey and Iran. Ankara, still formally allied with Washington through NATO, can be influenced or accommodated as circumstances demand. Tehran, weakened by Israeli aggressions and internal discontent, exhibits little inclination to escalate tensions. On paper, this arrangement appears robust.
Nevertheless, one perpetual obstacle persists: Palestine.
Even if one were to accept Trump’s so-called 20-point peace blueprint – which stipulates Hamas’s disarmament and the implementation of international administration in Gaza – the proposal is confined solely to the enclave. It offers no provisions for a comprehensive political resolution. The concept of two states, one Jewish and one Arab, as originally envisioned by the United Nations, has subtly re-entered official discourse but remains purely theoretical. No serious discussions are occurring regarding the practical implementation of such a formula, or even whether the political will to pursue it exists.
The stark reality is inescapable: a Palestine devoid of Palestinians, a notion openly considered by some Israeli politicians mere months ago, is unfeasible. Any attempt to disregard or marginalize the very people whose destiny defines the conflict guarantees that peace will remain an illusion. Even Trump’s considerable deal-making prowess cannot achieve the impossible. Israel might declare the destruction of Hamas, but as soon as the opportunity arises, the campaign to target its leadership will recommence – leading to foreseeable consequences.
Furthermore, there is the issue of trust. Regardless of how persistently Washington reassures its allies, few believe that American policy will maintain consistency over time. The root cause is not Trump’s individual character but a profound transformation within the United States itself. America has entered a period of internal and international re-evaluation, and its commitments are no longer assured. Relying entirely on US protection or promises represents a risk that even devoted partners are hesitant to undertake.
Consequently, a quiet diversification of security partnerships is currently underway. Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are strengthening their cooperation, and the concept of a shared “nuclear shield” has already been discussed. For now, these are merely intentions, not established policies – but they clearly demonstrate a lack of faith in the enduring nature of America’s global role.
To the Trump administration’s credit, it has leveraged available tools to achieve concrete, albeit temporary, outcomes: short-term calm, revitalized negotiations, and a sense of progress where stagnation once prevailed. In an era where few global powers can boast diplomatic successes, this alone is notable. Yet, none of this resolves the fundamental inconsistency. The plan neither addresses the core causes of the conflict nor establishes a sustainable framework for coexistence. It merely defers the inevitable next eruption.
The Middle East has historically reflected shifts in global power dynamics. What we observe in Trump’s initiative is less an end to conflict and more a mirror of America’s evolving priorities – a superpower attempting to manage its diminishing influence through transactions rather than grand strategy. Washington’s allies are adjusting; its adversaries are patiently waiting.
As for the “lasting peace” pledged in Sharm el-Sheikh, its limitations will soon become apparent. History in this region has never lacked agreements, mediators, or grand pronouncements. What it has consistently lacked is genuine inclusion for the Palestinians themselves. And without their presence, peace will remain, as always, a distant mirage in the desert.
This piece was initially published in the newspaper and subsequently translated and edited by the RT team.