The announcement of a long-awaited Gaza cease-fire deal on Wednesday marked a rare and fascinating moment in U.S. political history: a collaboration between outgoing President Joe Biden and incoming President-elect Donald J. Trump. The two leaders, sharply divided politically and personally, put aside their animosities to address the pressing crisis—a cease-fire agreement to end the devastating Gaza conflict and secure the release of hostages held for 15 months. In a moment that upended conventional norms in Washington, this uneasy partnership displayed how shared goals, albeit driven by differing motivations, can unite even bitter rivals.
### A Historic, Unlikely Collaboration
The cease-fire, set to begin Sunday—just 24 hours before Biden hands over the White House to Trump—was fraught with political underpinnings and global stakes. For Biden, it was a last-ditch chance to cement a legacy of peace in the region, showcasing his administration’s ability to tackle one of the most deadly and protracted modern conflicts between Israel and Palestine. For Trump, on the edge of his second term, the deal meant clearing a significant issue from his agenda before he assumes office, giving him space to spotlight other priorities on Day One.
The deal, although a manifestation of cooperation, predictably led to a credit-grabbing contest. Trump wasted no time taking to his platform in an all-caps post declaring the cease-fire as the product of his “EPIC leadership,” suggesting, unsurprisingly, that his return to power was the catalyst. Meanwhile, Biden, measured but visibly irked, highlighted that both administrations had worked together and claimed credit for initially proposing the framework in May. “Is that a joke?” Biden quipped in response to questions about who deserved recognition.
### Awkward but Effective: Why It Worked
Despite the political sparring, many observers lauded the shared effort as reflective of a broader, rare willingness to act beyond partisan divides for a greater good. Mara Rudman, a former deputy special envoy for Middle East peace under President Obama, summed it up succinctly: “Everybody’s talking about who gets credit, but the fact is, it’s shared, and part of the reason it worked is because it’s shared.” The collaboration highlighted what was possible when people’s political interests aligned with the ethically right course of action. However effective this partnership proved, experts were not optimistic it would lead to sustained synergy moving forward.
Ultimately, the agreement reflected a deeper urgency born out of the timing of the U.S. presidential transition. Trump’s impending return to power added leverage to the negotiations. His warnings that “all hell will break loose” if hostages were not released by his inauguration forced Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Hamas into action. Having thrived under Trump’s unabashed support during his first term, Netanyahu knew he could not count on another blank check if the conflict dragged on. Adding to the dramatic optics, Netanyahu called Trump first to express his gratitude, relegating Biden to a secondary mention in official statements.
### The Biden-Trump Dynamic: Parallel Motives, Different Styles
The process of securing the cease-fire mirrored the contrasting leadership styles of Biden and Trump. Biden’s team, led by Middle East envoy Brett H. McGurk, had painstakingly championed the same deal since May, carefully framing it to appeal to both warring parties. Trump’s more performative approach, however, added a layer of urgency to the equation. His new Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, worked behind the scenes with Biden’s team and used his rapport with Trump to push for progress. The dual-pronged strategy—the quiet diplomacy of Biden’s team and Trump’s bombastic public threats—proved instrumental in finalizing the agreement.
Former Representative Tom Malinowski, a Democrat, captured the duality, reluctantly praising Trump. “This was Biden’s deal,” he said, “but as much as I hate to say it, he couldn’t have done it without Trump—not so much Trump’s performative threats to Hamas, but his willingness to tell Bibi [Netanyahu] bluntly that the war had to end by Jan. 20.”
Even some Republicans, like Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina, acknowledged the bipartisan achievement with cautious praise, noting, “It is good to see the Biden Administration and Trump Transition working together to get this deal done.”
### A Ticking Clock and History’s Ghosts
The rapidly approaching inauguration presented a new “action-forcing deadline” that could not be ignored, but it was far from the only variable. Over the preceding months, Israel had systematically dismantled Hamas leadership, weakened its Hezbollah allies in Lebanon, and undermined Iranian military support networks. Additionally, shifts in the geopolitical landscape, such as the collapse of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime, further isolated Hamas. Yet the political transition in Washington created an undeniable pressure point.
The urgency of the situation evoked memories of past presidential transitions haunted by international crises. Newly inaugurated presidents have often inherited complex emergencies. One striking parallel was President Jimmy Carter’s desperate final push in 1981 to free 52 American hostages in Iran. Carter struck a deal, but Iran held the planes carrying the hostages until after Ronald Reagan’s inauguration—a bitter symbolic humiliation for Carter. Biden’s team reportedly reflected on Carter’s experience, keen to coordinate thoroughly with Trump’s incoming administration to avoid a similar scenario.
### Political Undertones Shaping the Conflict
Trump’s complex relationship with Netanyahu added yet another layer to this high-stakes diplomacy. Once considered Trump’s closest ally on the global stage, Netanyahu’s decision to congratulate Biden after the 2020 election—a victory Trump continues to deny—strained their bond. However, Netanyahu has labored in recent months to mend ties with Trump. Against this backdrop, Netanyahu’s cautious handling of the cease-fire negotiations underscored his need to align with Trump, whose influence in Israeli politics remains significant.
On the other hand, Biden’s relationship with Netanyahu has been fraught ever since his initial show of support following the Oct. 7 Hamas-led terror attacks. Biden’s administration suspected Netanyahu of deliberately delaying an agreement to allow Trump to claim the glory, a maneuver that would curry favor with the incoming president. Choosing a cease-fire now, at the cusp of Biden’s exit and Trump’s arrival, seemed like a calculated political compromise on Netanyahu’s part.
### Final Thoughts and Looking Ahead
As Biden addressed the nation Wednesday, his tone was solemn yet relieved. After 15 months of navigating the delicate Israel-Palestine crisis and averting wider regional warfare, the cease-fire was a bittersweet triumph. Biden expressed empathy for the lives lost and devastation wrought on both sides, emphasizing it was time to end the suffering. Standing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris and Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Biden noted, “This deal was developed and negotiated under my administration,” while acknowledging the complexity of its implementation under Trump’s leadership.
Trump, characteristically, claimed the agreement as his victory. Ignoring the contributions of Biden’s team, he declared triumphantly, “We have achieved so much without even being in the White House. Just imagine all of the wonderful things that will happen when I return.”
The cease-fire itself represents a temporary but critical pause in a conflict defined by decades of bloodshed and mistrust. Whether this fragile peace will last and lead to broader resolutions remains uncertain, but the collaboration between two fiercely divided leaders—even as they sparred for credit—is a reminder of the power of shared urgency in tackling monumental challenges. As Biden exits and Trump returns, eyes around the world will remain fixed on the U.S. and its next chapter of Middle East diplomacy.
