The timing of US President Donald Trump’s visit to the Middle East is raising expectations about his ability to effect a change in the regional and international situation.
Hours before his arrival to the region, Edan Alexander, 21, an Israeli-American hostage was released after 19 months of captivity in Gaza. Alexander was the last living American held by Hamas.
The release came after four-way talks between Hamas, the United States, Egypt and Qatar, excluding Israel. Alexander’s release could open the way to freeing the remaining 58 hostages. Hamas said it freed Alexander as a good-will gesture to Trump.
However, bombs continue to rain down on Gaza, claiming countless defenseless lives each day. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not only dismissed calls for a ceasefire — even a symbolic pause during Trump’s visit — but has also refused to open humanitarian corridors, leaving Palestinians to perish from starvation and untreated wounds.
Before his return to the White House in January, Trump pledged to stop the Israeli war on Gaza and bring the Russia-Ukraine conflict to an end. However, the current reality suggests that Washington has yet to achieve meaningful progress on either front.
Nevertheless, the US has succeeded in brokering a ceasefire agreement between India and Pakistan and in containing tensions between Turkey and Israel in Syria, where Trump is also seeking to leverage Turkey’s role to mediate an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict.
Hence, the visit to the Middle East is as important for Trump as it is for the region. A successful breakthrough in resolving the Gaza conflict would enhance Trump’s political standing and mark a turning point towards regional stability following the security and political repercussions of Operation Al-Aqsa Flood that Hamas launched against Israel on 7 October 2023.
Despite attempts by some regional and Israeli media outlets to portray heightened tensions between Washington and Tel Aviv, the reality is that the strategic relationship between the US and Israel remains solid. Even disagreements such as those surrounding the handling of the Iranian nuclear issuehave not derailed bilateral relations.
The US, while currently favouring a diplomatic approach, has not ruled out a military option to this, keeping all possibilities on the table should Tehran continue to resist a deal that ensures the security interests of all the parties concerned.
Moreover, Israel needs to maintain strategic relations with Washington because it needs to cooperate militarily with the US to deal a destructive blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. At the same time, Washington is intent on safeguarding both its own interests and those of its Gulf allies in the face of Iranian ambitions.
Thus, it is currently deferring any military confrontation, especially given its reluctance to become embroiled in another war in the Middle East.
Trump has taken concrete steps in this direction, including by reducing the US military footprint in Syria and reaching a limited agreement with the Houthis in Yemen that entails a ceasefire from the US side in exchange for their halting attacks on US vessels in the Red Sea.
Although this may be seen as a form of unilateral accommodation that sidelines Israel, Tel Aviv will nevertheless continue to act in accordance with its own strategic priorities by sustaining its military campaign against the Houthi militia in Yemen.
Given Israel’s advanced military capabilities, especially the reach and precision of its Air Force, it remains fully capable of striking Houthi strongholds and inflicting significant damage.
It might be premature to assume that any ceasefire agreement in Gaza will be the result of coordination between the US and Israel. Despite its considerable influence, Washington cannot unilaterally impose a ceasefire on Israel, which remains the key military actor on the ground.
However, the US can assert its stance regarding the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip, particularly in the light of mounting international criticism and the prolonged halt in aid flows for over two months.
The prospect of a temporary truce remains viable, especially following reports from Hamas leaders confirming the initiation of separate negotiations with the US. This suggests that an agreement involving a limited truce and the facilitation of aid entry in exchange for the release of hostages may be the most achievable outcome during Trump’s visit to the region.
This likelihood is further reinforced by Israel’s decision to postpone the expansion of its ground operations in Gaza, an offensive previously described as its most extensive yet,to avoid placing Trump in an awkward position while he is in the region.
Coordination between the US and Israel may even involve delaying the ceasefire announcement until Trump’s visit, thereby enabling him to claim credit for brokering a breakthrough.
SPECULATION: That said, speculative claims about an imminent US declaration or recognition of a Palestinian state remain unfounded.
Washington will not compromise its strategic alliance with Israel under any circumstances. It was Trump, after all, who gave Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to resume military operations in Gaza.
Furthermore, it is unrealistic to consider the recognition of a Palestinian state when the Israeli Knesset has openly rejected all frameworks for such a solution, and when Israel itself is expected to be the principal counterpart in any peace process with the Palestinians.
At the same time, there is a growing consensus, regionally and internationally, that no meaningful political process on the Palestinian cause can proceed without the involvement of Egypt and Jordan. Final arrangements cannot bypass these key countries, not only due to geographic and historical considerations, but also in the light of the stipulations enshrined in the 1979 Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty.
The issue of US-brokered normalisation between Saudi Arabia and Israel will also not be on the agenda during Trump’s visit. Riyadh has maintained a clear and consistent position, firmly linking normalisation to the establishment of a political horizon that includes the creation of a Palestinian state.
This stance comes at a time when a temporary ceasefire in Gaza represents the upper limit of what Trump is likely to achieve during his visit.
However, this does not imply that Israel should view the visit with complete reassurance. It may carry strategic implications that, while not explicitly stated, are evident from the broader context.
Trump’s decision not to visit Israel during his first regional toursuggests a recalibration of regional priorities and a potential shift in the US strategic centre of gravity towards the Gulf states.
This shift is further evidenced by the role of Saudi Arabia in mediating the ceasefire talks between Russia and Ukraine, Oman’s involvement in indirect negotiations between the US and both the Houthis and Iran, and Qatar’s mediation efforts in the Gaza conflict.
Another sensitive issue for Israel is the Saudi nuclear agreement and the scope of concessions Washington might extend within its framework. Of particular concern is the proposal granting Saudi Arabia the right to enrich uranium on its own soil for civilian purposes.
From Israel’s perspective, any US approval of domestic uranium enrichment for Saudi Arabia could pose a serious risk. Israel has long warned that such a precedent, even within the framework of peaceful nuclear energy, could trigger a broader regional trend of uranium enrichment, thereby increasing proliferation risks.
This concern has been a recurring theme in Israeli think tank reports, which have urged policymakers to monitor and oppose the approval of such agreements, even if they carry the endorsement of the US.
As important as the potential outcomes of Trump’s regional visit may be, it remains difficult to view them as establishing permanent or enduring foundations.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 15 May, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: