The difference between the first and second Trump in the Middle East | policy

US President Donald Trump’s visit to Israel and Egypt, and the signing of a document to end the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, inaugurated a new era in the Middle East.

The effects of this era will not be limited to achieving a sustainable end to the Gaza war and arranging the post-war phase, but will go beyond it to bring about a major change in the dynamics of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and Israel’s relationship with the Islamic world.

Although Trump’s speeches before the Israeli Knesset, and at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, in which he spoke about the Middle East entering an era of peace, appear optimistic in a way that conflicts with the complexities of historical conflicts in the region, they reflect a somewhat realistic ambition about what Trump seeks to accomplish during the remainder of his second presidential term.

On the surface, Trump succeeded in achieving a major breakthrough in the region by ending a two-year war that ignited numerous conflicts and spread chaos on a large scale.

But his claim that he was able to end this war contradicts the fact that his policies during his first presidential term were a fundamental reason for preparing the environment for this conflict, especially through presenting the “Deal of the Century” project that aimed to liquidate the Palestinian issue, recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and support Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan, in addition to sponsoring the Abraham Accords between Israel and some Arab countries.

If Trump succeeds in ending this war during his second term – which seems likely – he will have ended a war whose causes he helped create, but at the same time he is seeking to complete what he started in his first term, under the slogan of achieving “broader peace.”

Although the details of Trump’s plan regarding Gaza are still not entirely clear, especially with regard to who will manage the Strip after the war, and the future of the Hamas movement, the most notable thing achieved at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit was the provision of broad regional, American and international cover for the agreement to end the war.

This cover limits the ability of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to resume the war once the Israeli hostages are recovered, or complications arise regarding the management of the Gaza Strip after the war.

Ending the war at the hands of Trump will remain an achievement to be reckoned with, despite his contribution to finding its causes. But the main mistake that Trump makes in his second term, as in his first, is his belief that he is able to bring about a radical transformation in the region without addressing the essence of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, which is the establishment of a Palestinian state.

The absence of any reference to a Palestinian state in his speeches before the Knesset and at the Sharm El-Sheikh summit, as well as in his plan for Gaza, does not inspire optimism about his ability to achieve a historic breakthrough in the Middle East.

However, the success of Trump’s Gaza plan would broadly reshape the region’s dynamics. Among the following goals that Trump seeks to achieve are: working to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, and bringing about a historic transformation in Syrian-Israeli relations by pushing towards concluding a bilateral security agreement as an entry point to this transformation.

The potential shift in Syrian-Israeli relations will also help Washington manage one of the most serious challenges in the Middle East, which is the Turkish-Israeli rivalry in Syria.

But Trump in his second term is not fundamentally different from what he was in his first term, as he now seeks to complete what he started by expanding the Abraham Accords to include new Arab and Islamic countries, strengthening recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the occupied Syrian Golan, as well as working to disarm Hezbollah as a prelude to the possibility of Lebanon joining the peace agreements in the end.

There is no doubt that Trump aspires to register his name in history as an American president who has succeeded in achieving what his predecessors were unable to do in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and in Israel’s relationship with the Islamic world. But he presents himself, first and foremost, as a savior of Israel from a war in which it achieved great military achievements, but was unable to convert them into political gains, or end it in the way it wanted.

He also sees the Gaza Agreement as a gateway to achieving what he describes as “broader peace” in the Middle East, a goal he seeks to achieve during the remainder of his presidential term. But the time factor pressures him to achieve his ambitions.

However, the idea of ​​bringing the Middle East into an era of peace according to Trump’s perspective remains an illusion, as he sees peace through the lens of Israeli power. Any peace based on this approach may achieve significant gains for Israel in the region without making substantive concessions to the Palestinians, but it will not lead to a sustainable or comprehensive peace unless it addresses the core of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

The Trump that the region is dealing with today is not much different from the Trump it knew in his first term.