As President Donald Trump prepares for discussions with Russian President Vladimir Putin regarding a potential ceasefire in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war, the broader landscape of global diplomacy presents a stark reminder of the challenges he faces.
A previous ceasefire, considered one of Trump’s early foreign policy achievements since returning to the White House, collapsed just 58 days ago. That agreement, reached between Israel and the terrorist organisation Hamas, had been tenuous from the outset.
The ceasefire in Gaza had initially served the interests of both Trump and his predecessor, Joe Biden. For Biden, securing a temporary halt in hostilities before leaving office provided a semblance of diplomatic success.
However, it was evident from the start that the truce would be short-lived. Today, analysts and policymakers may point to a range of factors behind the breakdown of peace efforts between Israel and Hamas, from internal political dynamics in Israel to Hamas’ strategic calculations. But the fundamental question remains: why has the Middle East been engulfed in cycles of violence for years, and who initiated the latest wave of hostilities?
The attack on Israel on 7 October 2023, in which Hamas fighters crossed into Israeli territory and took hostages, underscored the nature of the conflict. Hamas continues to use those hostages as leverage, with one of its representatives recently declaring that the resumption of Israeli military action would be a “death sentence” for the captives.
The exact number of hostages still alive remains unknown, but Hamas’ statements are clearly aimed at influencing both international opinion and domestic Israeli politics. The goal is to destabilise Israel further and provoke fresh waves of anti-Israel protests worldwide.
Achieving a lasting ceasefire with Hamas remains implausible as long as the group retains the resources to continue its fight and receives support from external actors. Certain states, including Iran, have consistently backed Hamas and Hezbollah, providing them with funding, weapons, and political cover.
Today, Trump is engaging with the leader of one such state—Putin. Despite widespread recognition of Russia’s aggressive foreign policies, Trump has thus far refrained from labelling Putin’s actions as outright aggression. His approach, which appears to allow Moscow to deepen its ties with actors such as Iran and its proxies, raises questions about the prospects for meaningful de-escalation in both the Middle East and Ukraine.
Sustained hostilities persist in Gaza partly because a significant segment of Palestinian society continues to view the destruction of Israel as a legitimate political objective. The attack on 7 October emboldened these sentiments, complicating efforts by Arab leaders who seek to maintain pragmatic relations with Israel. Even moderate Arab governments must now account for the increased radicalisation within their populations.
The renewed Israeli strikes on Gaza will inevitably fuel further unrest, with reports of civilian casualties reinforcing anti-Israel narratives. The deaths of hostages during Israeli operations will also be highlighted by international media, adding further pressure on the Netanyahu government and complicating any diplomatic efforts.
While there is ongoing debate over whether Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu genuinely seeks a negotiated settlement with Hamas, the fundamental issue remains unchanged: as long as Hamas’ ideological foundation is rooted in the destruction of Israel, any ceasefire will be temporary. Every truce is at risk of being shattered by another rocket barrage, a terrorist attack, or a strategic provocation.
The broader implications of this conflict extend beyond the Middle East. The interplay between global powers—most notably the United States and Russia—shapes the course of conflicts worldwide. Trump’s engagement with Putin occurs in a context where Moscow’s support for Iran and its proxies remains a key factor in regional instability.
If the U.S. administration fails to address the root causes of this geopolitical alignment, ceasefire negotiations—whether in Ukraine or Gaza—are unlikely to result in lasting peace.
Ultimately, a sustainable resolution in the Middle East depends on shifts in public sentiment within Palestinian territories and broader Arab societies. Without changes in the political and ideological landscape, external diplomatic efforts, even those led by the U.S. president, will remain constrained.
The reality is that no American leader, regardless of their promises, can unilaterally reshape public attitudes or eliminate the deep-seated drivers of conflict. For Trump, the challenge lies not only in navigating these complexities but also in ensuring that his foreign policy decisions do not undermine the credibility of U.S. leadership on the world stage.
Read also:
Trump Unveils AI-Generated ‘Trump-Gaza’ Utopia—Because What’s a War Zone Without a Luxury Resort?
