The long-awaited meeting in Washington between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu took place with several unexpected developments. While the primary objective of the bilateral discussion was to outline strategies for advancing negotiations in the “Phase Two” of talks between Israel and Hamas — essential to achieving a ceasefire in Gaza —, the summit at the White House between these two longstanding allies instead emerged as a broader agenda-setting session. It sought to define the U.S.-Israeli strategic vision for the Middle East, characterized by an assertive and unilateral approach in which both countries envision themselves playing a dominant role in the region. For Washington, this shift is particularly significant because it breaks definitively with decades of U.S. foreign policy aimed at promoting a “Two-state solution” for Israel and the Palestinians. In this way, the United States is pushing to no longer play a subordinate role in regional dynamics or cede influence to external players such as China and Russia. Over the years, both Beijing and Moscow have sought to fill the vacuum left by U.S. policies that have increasingly pivoted towards the Indo-Pacific.
Thus, this framework appears to delineate new prospects for redefining regional balances. More specifically, the “Trump Plan for Gaza” appears to echo the positions of the Israeli far-right and certain U.S. factions closely aligned with the Netanyahu administration. The plan reportedly includes the forced displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, with their permanent resettlement in neighbouring countries — primarily Egypt and Jordan. Furthermore, the United States has proposed taking control of the area and occupying it indefinitely — possibly by redeploying troops withdrawn from northern Syria — to facilitate the economic development of the Palestinian enclave. A shift in the approach not without foundation. During his first term (2017-2021), Trump actively pursued policies favouring Israel, including recognizing the Golan Heights as Israeli territory, relocating the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, and attempting to break the Israeli-Palestinian status quo with the so-called “Deal of the Century” — a peace proposal heavily skewed in favour of Tel Aviv.
Beyond the rhetoric and political posturing, the Trump plan remains vague and ambiguous. It is clear that for the president, Gaza is primarily an economic matter, aligning with certain positions of the Israeli far-right that supports territorial occupation and the construction of new settlements. However, this plan presents numerous critical uncertainties. Most notably, it lacks a clear and structured vision for Gaza’s future governance, leaving unanswered whether the administration of the territory would fall under Palestinian, Arab, or international oversight. Additionally, the future role of Israel remains ambiguous: will it be limited to a temporary military occupation, or does the plan envision reopening Jewish settlements in central and northern Gaza, particularly in the corridor between Erez and Netzarim? Another key question concerns the Philadelphi Corridor: it is plausible that it would remain under Israeli control, with U.S. approval, thereby altering the Middle eastern security architecture that has nominally governed the region since the 1978 Camp David Accords. At the same time, two major unresolved issues loom large: the absence of a clear recognition of a Palestinian state, which risks stalling negotiations between Israel and Hamas currently underway in Washington, and the challenge that this plan poses to international law and global norms of coexistence.
As Trump himself indicated in recent weeks, Egypt and Jordan would be expected to bear the full responsibility for the well-being of approximately 2.1 million displaced Gazans, exacerbating already severe socio-economic and political challenges in both countries. These countries are still grappling with the repercussions of systemic crises over the past five years, from the COVID-19 pandemic to the grain crisis triggered by the Russia-Ukraine war, and now the Gaza conflict. Predictably, the Trump proposal was immediately rejected not only by Cairo and Amman but also by the broader Arab-Muslim community, with Saudi Arabia at the forefront. Riyadh has reiterated to Washington and Tel Aviv that the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia is contingent upon full recognition of a Palestinian state. This stance will inevitably impact another significant diplomatic negotiation — namely, the proposed mutual defense agreement between Saudi Arabia and the United States. This agreement, which requires Israeli approval, includes provisions for the development of a Saudi civilian nuclear program.
A closer examination suggests that Trump and Netanyahu’s discussions on Gaza may, in reality, be a proxy for negotiations concerning the West Bank. Notably, just 48 hours after the January 19 humanitarian truce was signed, the Israeli government launched its largest military operation in years across Jenin, Tulkarem, and Nablus, dubbed “Iron Wall”. Officially framed as a counterterrorism operation, Tel Aviv’s stated goal was to dismantle Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and pro-Iranian militant cells in the northern West Bank. The Netanyahu administration, particularly under pressure from its far-right factions, appears to be pursuing the annexation of what it deems the ‘useful’ West Bank — approximately 30% of the territory extending from Samaria and Judea (the Israeli legal designation for the Occupied Palestinian Territory), where most Jewish settlements are concentrated, to the strategically vital Jordan Valley, known for its fertile land and water resources. This has been a longstanding objective of Israeli policy, dating back to the aftermath of the 1967 Arab-Israeli wars.
In essence, this represents a reprise of Netanyahu’s diplomatic efforts between April and July 2020 following the unveiling of Trump’s “Deal of the Century” peace plan in January 2020. At that time, the plan was stalled due to the opposition from segments of the U.S. establishment, as well as the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which threatened to withdraw from the parallel negotiations leading to the “Abraham Accords”, officially signed in September 2020. Five years later, the dynamics remain largely unchanged, albeit with different players. Instead of the UAE, it is now Saudi Arabia that is conditioning any normalization with Israel on formal and comprehensive recognition of Palestinian statehood. This move is driven by domestic considerations, as post-October 7, 2023, Saudi public opinion — especially among the under-30 people, which constitute two-thirds of the total population — has become increasingly pro-Palestinian. At the same time, Riyadh seeks to strategically position itself in the trilateral negotiations involving the United States and Israel.
Despite the rhetoric of both U.S. and Israeli officials, neither country has managed to alter the regional status quo due to conflicting interests within the Arab world, which remains skeptical of Washington’s strong alignment with Israeli priorities. Thus, Trump’s speech last night should not be underestimated, particularly his renewed aggressive narrative on Iran. Tehran is increasingly being framed as the common adversary that could serve to realign regional balances in line with U.S. and Israeli interests. Beyond ongoing negotiations regarding Lebanon and Gaza, the Trump administration appears keen to resolve the Palestinian issue by shifting the regional focus towards Iran. In this framework, Washington and Tel Aviv may attempt to push Arab counterparts towards a recalibration of regional relations by expanding the scope of the Abraham Accords as a countermeasure against Iranian influence.
This approach would effectively subordinate Middle Eastern developments not to Gaza or Israeli-Palestinian tensions in the West Bank, but rather to the Trump-Netanyahu strategy concerning Iran. While the White House seeks to permanently halt Iran’s nuclear program, factions within the Trump administration are increasingly sympathetic to Netanyahu’s position and the demands of pro-Israel lobbying groups in Washington. Consequently, U.S. promises of new severe sanctions against Tehran may not be enough for Israel, which advocates for direct military action, potentially aimed at regime change. Although Trump has repeatedly dismissed the possibility of a large-scale military intervention, alternative scenarios remain under consideration, including targeted strikes against Iranian nuclear sites or high-ranking members of the Quds Force in Iran and the broader Middle East.
Anyway, an Israeli-U.S. military strike on Iran would have profound regional and global consequences. If such an attack failed to comprehensively dismantle Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, Tehran would have the capacity to retaliate with significant force, targeting Israeli, Western, and Arab interests both within and beyond the Middle East. In such a scenario, U.S. and allied military installations in the Gulf would be primary targets, while global trade and energy markets could suffer disruptions, with potential maritime conflicts in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz. Given these risks, it is likely that Gulf states such as Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar would work to prevent escalation, fearing that such developments could undermine their recent efforts to stabilize relations with Tehran. Ultimately, while the U.S. and Israel may seek to reshape the regional order, the uncertain and volatile nature of Middle Eastern geopolitics suggests that such ambitions could prove dangerously unpredictable.
In conclusion, it can be argued that the events in Washington represent a potential turning point for the United States and Israel, as well as their vision for reshaping regional power dynamics. However, it remains unclear how and to what extent Trump and Netanyahu can usher in a so-called ‘new era’ without alienating crucial Arab support. At stake is no longer just the openly declared Middle Eastern conflict with Tehran and its regional allies (Hezbollah, the Houthis and various Iran-backed militias in Syria and Iraq) but rather an unequivocal attempt to redefine the regional balance entirely in favour of the U.S. and Israel. Therefore, any decision made along the Washington-Tel Aviv axis concerning Gaza will have far-reaching consequences, impacting multiple geopolitical dynamics – starting with the several issues related to Iran – and influencing regional and international governance and security frameworks.
Giuseppe Dentice