Hamas’s acceptance of U.S. President Donald Trump’s plan to halt the war in Gaza appears to present a significant opportunity to open a new horizon for peace in the Middle East. This development is not limited to Gaza alone; it could influence other critical issues, including Hezbollah’s position in Lebanon, disarmament processes, and ongoing negotiations involving Syria and Israel. If successfully implemented, the initiative may serve as a model for broader regional settlements, potentially redrawing the geopolitical map of the Middle East.
Trump’s ceasefire initiative is more than a tactical pause in hostilities. Analysts argue that it represents a wider vision for the region, with Israel playing an active role politically, diplomatically, and economically. However, its success depends on secure access through Gaza and the distancing of Iran-affiliated groups, particularly Hamas and Hezbollah, from Tehran. Only then could a broader U.S. strategy aim at stabilizing hotspots and reducing conflict take hold.
Despite political and security challenges, there appears to be a genuine window for progress. Gaza could serve as a pilot for similar agreements in Lebanon and Syria, reflecting Trump’s stated ambition for a peace trajectory “from Syria to Saudi Arabia.” The initiative is designed not merely as a temporary truce but as a potential framework for long-term strategic realignment across the region.
Immediate Challenges
Former Egyptian Deputy Foreign Minister Hazem Khairat told +963, “It is still too early to judge Trump’s plan.” Key concerns, he explained, include implementing a ceasefire and arranging the return of hostages; a process complicated by difficulties in consolidating the remains of deceased captives.
Khairat further noted that Israel, known for its patience in negotiations, could intentionally prolong discussions, while Hamas faces internal challenges in meeting initial conditions. The disarmament of Hamas is another sensitive issue, likely to require a considerable period to implement. Additionally, phased withdrawals without clear guarantees could slow progress.
Future steps involve complex Palestinian reforms and broader political negotiations. Khairat emphasized that any restoration of authority risks altering the Palestinian divide, which may conflict with Israeli interests. Normalization with Israel, he said, remains distant due to multiple obstacles and past experiences showing that Israel may invoke pretexts to delay or disrupt the process.
Read also: Islamic Governance in Syria: Lessons from Saudi Arabia and Turkey
Beyond Gaza: U.S. Strategy for Regional Calm and Gradual Normalization
In assessing the regional implications, the former Egyptian ambassador in Damascus explained, “The situation in Gaza will not directly affect Syrian–Israeli relations,” noting that “there is already indirect dialogue between the two sides under U.S. pressure, which could lead to a partial breakthrough.” However, he added, “This file will require a long time.”
He emphasized that “the Syrian public needs to be prepared to accept the idea of negotiation or full normalization with Israel, despite the Syrian regime’s desire for it and the international pressures it faces.”
Khairat also highlighted that “the Egyptian experience is different, as Israel withdrew from all Egyptian territories,” questioning, “Could it do the same in Syria?”
He further pointed out that “the situation is uncertain, especially given Syria’s limited sovereignty and internal crises in Suwayda, the north, the south, and the Kurdish regions,” concluding, “Everything remains possible, but this file is not directly connected to Gaza.”
Meanwhile, international relations researcher Dr. Kamal Al-Zghoul told +963 that “Trump wants to achieve this agreement and open a horizon for peace based on a two-state solution,” noting that “even if Trump does not fully believe in this idea, he is seeking to pave the way for the agreement regardless of the obstacles.”
Al-Zghoul added that “Trump has tried as much as possible to provide Netanyahu with a safety net, and he has also received assurances from the opposition,” pointing out that “Trump has entered a phase where he aims to gradually disarm Hamas, which means Netanyahu has sufficient time to handle this issue before the upcoming elections,” considering that “this step has helped Netanyahu avoid prosecution for the time being.”
Regarding the next stage, Al-Zghoul said, “The next focus may be Lebanon, as attention is expected to shift there after Gaza,” explaining that “Lebanon is now on the line, and the Americans and Israelis do not want Hezbollah’s weapons to remain, as they provide Iran with support in any future confrontation.”
He clarified that “the Iranians learned an important lesson from the previous round, which is that the absence of Hezbollah’s intervention changed the equation,” but he added, “It is extremely difficult for Hezbollah to surrender its weapons, unlike Gaza, due to its widespread presence and possession of heavy arms.”
Concerning Syria, Al-Zghoul noted that “Trump is talking about a security agreement that primarily ensures its borders,” pointing out that “Saudi Arabia is also concerned with the Syrian file, as it sees that any peace in Syria would lead to normalization with it, but this will not happen until the region stabilizes.”
Al-Zghoul emphasized that “normalization with Saudi Arabia cannot be envisioned while the Middle East is in turmoil.”
He added that “Trump seeks to calm Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, then move toward a path of normalization in parallel with negotiations with Iran, which could either result in an agreement or strict sanctions.”
Regarding Iraq, the researcher explained that “Washington is trying to pressure factions to integrate into the government in preparation for its withdrawal, so as not to leave a security vacuum,” noting that “the same applies to Syria, where U.S. withdrawal first requires paving the way for peace agreements to reduce the military burden.”
Al-Zghoul concluded, “All of these factors have pushed Trump to accelerate the Gaza agreement, then move subsequently to the files of Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and normalization.”
Read also: Dollarized Prices in Syria: A Lifeline for Traders, a Burden for Citizens
Economic Peace and the Limits of Reality
Palestinian writer Zaid Al-Ayyubi suggested that the post-Gaza phase may usher in a period of “economic peace,” driven by investment, reconstruction, and crisis management rather than deep political solutions. However, he warned that Israel’s political mindset, particularly under Netanyahu’s right-wing government, remains unprepared for a comprehensive and fair settlement.
Palestinians aspire to an independent state with East Jerusalem as its capital, coexisting peacefully alongside Israel. Yet, Israel continues to view this as a potential existential threat. Any sustainable peace will also depend on Saudi support, which has conditioned potential normalization on Palestinian statehood.
Gaza as a Potential Gateway
Analysts agree that Gaza could become a starting point for a new Middle East, though opening this gateway will not be simple. The regional landscape is deeply complex, with intertwined political, security, and strategic interests. Hamas’s acceptance of the U.S. plan may mark the first concrete step toward a gradual peace, beginning in Gaza and potentially extending to Lebanon, Syria, and Saudi Arabia.
