Trump’s visit to Israel and his speech at the Knesset this week comes at a moment of profound strategic transition in the Middle East. It is not merely an American president’s visit to a close ally; it is the symbolic culmination of a carefully orchestrated diplomatic manoeuver surrounding the Gaza agreement, seeking to reshape Israel’s security trajectory, redefine US influence in the Middle East, and potentially alter the contours of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In this regard, Trump is eager to reinforce his role not only as a dealmaker but as a statesman capable of reshaping long-standing conflicts previously thought intractable. The Gaza ceasefire, which is framed by Trump as the most significant diplomatic achievement of his second term, serves as a political foundation. Yet, behind this public narrative lies a complex interplay of motives: political ambition, personal legacy, strategic intervention in Israeli politics, and repositioning the United States at the centre of Middle East diplomacy.
Trump’s speech at the Knesset is a significant milestone that reveals the implications of this change in policy, including a pivotal shift in the American position on the Arab-Israeli conflict. But, during an in-flight press briefing on his way to Israel, he also made important statements, declaring that “the ceasefire in Gaza will hold” and that “the war in Gaza is over”, reflecting a deliberate attempt to shift the conflict from a military confrontation to a negotiated political settlement under his personal leadership. In this way Trump positions himself as the only figure capable of enforcing a final arrangement, part of his attempt to shape the post-war narrative before even arriving in Israel: his strategy of projecting confidence to create political momentum and bind all parties to an irreversible path. However, these declarations raise significant questions regarding the mechanisms of implementation, the fate of unresolved core issues, given that he is framing this moment as a historic turning point rather than a temporary de-escalation.
The invitation extended by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for Trump to address the Knesset is in itself historically significant. Speeches at the Israeli parliament are extremely rare for foreign leaders and reserved for moments of geopolitical significance. Trump’s appearance would place him alongside figures such as the Egyptian president Anwar Al-Sadat and US president Jimmy Carter, leaders associated with significant milestones in Arab-Israeli diplomacy. Yet, unlike his predecessors, Trump is not entering Israel just to announce peace. Indeed, Trump’s speech lasted for a whole hour, and it reflected political calculations, reaffirming the historic US-Israeli partnership. It carried four key strategic messages.
First, it signalled an implicit reaffirmation of Washington’s unconditional support for Israel, both politically and militarily, underscoring a long-term strategic commitment that transcends any temporary disagreements. Second, it emphasised that the war in Gaza is effectively nearing its end, according to the US-Israeli narrative, signalling a shift towards post-war arrangements and the restructuring of the regional landscape. Third, it reintroduced the doctrine of “peace through power” as a guiding principle of US policy, suggesting that any future political settlement will be shaped by the realities imposed on the ground through military power alongside negotiations.
And, finally, it combined the rhetoric of peace with explicit intervention in Israel’s internal political dynamics, Trump indirectly aligning himself with a specific faction within Israel by calling on the Israeli president to pardon Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces ongoing corruption charges. This appeal functioned as a message directed primarily at the Israeli audience, reinforcing Netanyahu’s political legitimacy and rallying right-wing support around him. Trump used the platform of foreign policy discourse to shape the internal Israeli power balance, demonstrating once again that US engagement in the region is not limited to strategic or security interests but extends to directly influencing leadership outcomes in allied states when such influence serves American geopolitical interests.
Having initially adopted unconditional support for Israel, Trump’s eventual recalibration was neither spontaneous nor tactical but rather the cumulative outcome of a series of compelling strategic pressures that can be summarised as follows. The first and perhaps most decisive factor was the unprecedented diplomatic momentum witnessed during the September 2025 session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. During this session, 157 member states voiced explicit positions rejecting the continuation of the war in Gaza and calling for a political resolution. This overwhelming alignment of the international community generated a critical shift in the global discourse, and Trump found himself confronting a stark geopolitical reality: the United States and Israel were increasingly isolated on the world stage, placed in direct opposition to an emerging international consensus. This isolation not only carried a diplomatic cost but also threatened the legitimacy of American international leadership.
The second driving factor behind Trump’s shift was the strategic miscalculation surrounding the strike on Qatar, a long-standing security partner of the United States and a state hosting vital American military assets. The operation yielded no strategic gains and, instead, resulted in a severe backlash across the Middle East. The episode exposed the limits of coercive power and underscored the risks of escalation with essential US regional allies. Consequently, the Trump administration was compelled to engage in crisis containment to mitigate the reputational and geopolitical fallout.
Third, Trump sought to reverse the deteriorating strategic situation by convening an American-Arab Summit, attended by key Arab and Gulf leaders, as well as influential Islamic states such as Pakistan, Indonesia, and Turkey. During this summit, he introduced what came to be known as the “Trump Plan”, a diplomatic framework intended to reposition the United States as a central actor in Middle East stability. This initiative reflected a broader attempt to regain diplomatic initiative and prevent a complete erosion of American influence in the region.
A fourth and politically sensitive factor involved growing international media discourse suggesting that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wielded outsized influence over Trump’s decision-making. Such narratives questioned the independence of US foreign policy and carried damaging implications for Trump’s domestic political identity, which is built on notions of decisiveness and sovereignty. Reports insinuating American subordination to Israeli political interests provoked visible irritation within Trump’s inner circle and contributed significantly to his decision to recalibrate.
Another pivotal factor behind the recent recalibration of the US position is the progressive erosion of Israel’s military capacity, which has raised strategic concerns in Washington regarding the sustainability of prolonged conflict. On 4 September 2025, the Israeli army publicly acknowledged, according to Israel’s Channel 13, a significant decline in operational readiness, revealing a reduction in both the number of active tanks and available troops. Moreover, between 30 and 40 per cent of Israel’s D9 heavy armored vehicles were reported unfit for combat operations, undermining Israel’s capacity for offensive manoeuvers and ground incursions. Despite Israel’s emergency purchase of approximately 130 D9 bulldozers from the United States, only half of the shipment has actually been delivered, reflecting growing logistical strain. Germany’s decision to impose restrictions on arms exports to Israel should also be taken into account, since it signals increasing European reluctance to be drawn into the escalation. Collectively, these military limitations have not only exposed the vulnerability of Israel’s war machinery but have also pressured the United States to reconsider the costs and strategic feasibility of open-ended military support.
Finally, Trump’s shift cannot be separated from considerations of personal legacy and political ambition. His aspiration to secure the Nobel Peace Prize is well known; however, the 2025 prize was awarded to Venezuelan reformist María Corina Machado, extinguishing his hopes for immediate recognition. Nonetheless, Trump has now redirected his efforts towards shaping a narrative in which he will emerge as a historic peacemaker seeking to resolve the protracted Middle East conflict. This is also strategically linked to his renewed hope for the Nobel Prize in 2026, in which foreign policy achievement is expected to feature prominently, as well as leveraging the Gaza negotiations as a platform for global politics.
Undoubtedly, the Gaza agreement remains a positive step that should be built on. It includes provisions for the release of the Israeli hostages, a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, to what is known as the Yellow Line, while temporarily maintaining control over approximately 53 per cent of Gaza’s territory, and the establishment of humanitarian corridors. However, it also contains a number of shortcomings and critical strategic questions: Who will govern Gaza after the conflict? How will Hamas be disarmed, and by whom? What concessions will Israel accept in the process of achieving a political settlement?
Short link: