Trump’s Path to Middle East Peace: Navigating the Netanyahu Relationship

The Complex Calculus of Trump’s Return to Foreign Policy

As Donald Trump prepares to return to the White House, the intractable conflict between Israel and Hamas presents one of his most significant foreign policy challenges. The war, which has claimed thousands of lives and created a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, continues with no clear end in sight despite international pressure for de-escalation. Trump’s campaign promises included bold claims about his ability to swiftly resolve international conflicts, with the Middle East featuring prominently in his foreign policy agenda. However, experts across the diplomatic spectrum agree that any meaningful progress toward peace will hinge on Trump’s willingness to exert pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, with whom he maintained a close but complicated relationship during his first term.

The Trump-Netanyahu alliance has been characterized by both personal warmth and strategic calculation. During Trump’s first administration, the relationship yielded significant diplomatic victories for Israel, including the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the brokering of the Abraham Accords, which normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations. These achievements were celebrated by Netanyahu as historic breakthroughs. Trump has frequently referenced these accomplishments on the campaign trail, suggesting his established rapport with Netanyahu provides a foundation for effective diplomacy in the region. “I know Bibi well,” Trump has repeatedly stated, using Netanyahu’s nickname. “We’ve done great things together, and we can do it again.” Yet diplomatic insiders note that personal relationships in international politics often take a backseat to national interests and domestic political pressures when conflicts intensify.

Shifting Regional Dynamics and Diplomatic Leverage

The regional landscape Trump will inherit in January differs dramatically from the one he left in 2021. The October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and Israel’s subsequent military response in Gaza have fundamentally altered the strategic environment. The devastating humanitarian situation in Gaza, with critical shortages of food, medicine, and shelter for displaced Palestinians, has intensified international scrutiny of Israel’s military operations. Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk observes, “Trump enters a far more volatile situation where the diplomatic room for maneuver has narrowed considerably. The stakes are higher, the positions more entrenched, and the human cost more visible to the world.” The Biden administration’s attempts to broker a ceasefire have faced significant obstacles, with Hamas and Israel appearing far apart on fundamental issues such as hostage releases, security guarantees, and post-conflict governance arrangements for Gaza.

Regional powers that Trump previously engaged with, including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and the United Arab Emirates, have adopted increasingly critical positions toward Israel’s military campaign while facing domestic pressure over Palestinian suffering. These nations, once eager participants in the Abraham Accords framework, now express reluctance to normalize relations with Israel without concrete progress toward Palestinian statehood. Dr. Shibley Telhami, Anwar Sadat Professor for Peace and Development at the University of Maryland, explains: “The diplomatic capital Trump accumulated through the Abraham Accords has been significantly depleted by the Gaza war. Arab states that were moving toward normalization with Israel have pulled back, creating a more challenging environment for Trump’s deal-making approach.” This shifting regional alignment means Trump must navigate a more complex diplomatic landscape, potentially limiting his leverage with Netanyahu unless he can offer Israel something of substantial value in exchange for concessions.

The Netanyahu Factor: Domestic Politics and Strategic Interests

Netanyahu’s political survival has become increasingly intertwined with continuing the military campaign in Gaza. His governing coalition includes far-right parties that have threatened to collapse the government if military operations cease before achieving decisive victory against Hamas. This domestic political reality creates significant constraints on Netanyahu’s flexibility in peace negotiations. Dr. Aaron David Miller, a veteran Middle East negotiator who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations, notes: “Netanyahu is fighting for his political life and legacy. His willingness to make concessions will be severely limited by his coalition dependencies and his own legal troubles.” Netanyahu faces ongoing corruption trials that could result in prison time should he lose the immunity his office provides, further complicating his decision-making calculus on war and peace.

Trump’s influence over Netanyahu will be tested by these realities. Unlike previous presidents who maintained a degree of public distance from Israeli politics, Trump has deeply personalized the relationship, creating both opportunities and vulnerabilities. His unconditional support for Israel during his first term earned him tremendous goodwill among Israeli conservatives, but it also potentially diminished his leverage when disagreements arose. Former State Department official and Middle East expert David Makovsky suggests, “Trump’s effectiveness will depend on his willingness to have difficult private conversations with Netanyahu while maintaining public support for Israel. He’ll need to convince Netanyahu that a sustainable resolution to the conflict serves Israel’s long-term security interests better than an indefinite military campaign.” Trump’s demonstrated preference for personal diplomacy and headline-generating agreements could provide motivation to push for a breakthrough, particularly if he can frame it as a historic achievement that eluded his predecessors.

Potential Pathways and Strategic Approaches

Several potential diplomatic pathways exist for Trump to influence the conflict’s trajectory. The most immediate would involve intensifying efforts to secure a comprehensive hostage deal between Israel and Hamas, potentially expanding on frameworks developed during the Biden administration. Such an agreement could create momentum for a broader ceasefire and establish Trump as an effective mediator early in his term. Another approach might leverage Trump’s relationships with Gulf states to revitalize a regional peace initiative that addresses both immediate security concerns and longer-term Palestinian aspirations. His previous success with the Abraham Accords provides a template, though the current environment presents far greater challenges.

Trump could also attempt to reshape the post-conflict governance landscape in Gaza by mobilizing international financial support for reconstruction conditioned on security reforms and political changes. His business background and transactional approach to foreign policy might be applied to creating economic incentives for all parties. “Trump views himself as the ultimate dealmaker,” explains Ambassador Dennis Ross, who has advised multiple presidents on Middle East peace. “He may believe he can offer Netanyahu security guarantees and diplomatic cover that make difficult concessions more palatable domestically.” The administration could potentially link continued military assistance to Israel with progress toward specific diplomatic objectives, though Trump’s previous reluctance to condition aid to Israel suggests this would represent a significant policy shift. Each of these approaches would require sustained diplomatic engagement rather than the episodic attention that sometimes characterized Trump’s first-term foreign policy.

The Road Ahead: Prospects for Peace and Policy Implications

As Trump prepares to re-enter the Oval Office, the prospects for resolving the Israel-Hamas conflict remain uncertain. His unconventional diplomatic style—often dismissive of traditional State Department processes in favor of direct leader-to-leader engagement—could either break through entrenched positions or further complicate already delicate negotiations. What appears increasingly clear to regional experts is that meaningful progress will require Trump to leverage his relationship with Netanyahu toward difficult compromises rather than offering unconditional support. Dr. Tamara Cofman Wittes, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs, concludes: “Trump’s effectiveness as a peacemaker will ultimately be measured by his willingness to risk political capital with both domestic constituencies and international partners in pursuit of a sustainable resolution.”

The human cost of continued conflict—for Israelis living under threat of rocket attacks and for Palestinians enduring devastating humanitarian conditions in Gaza—creates moral and strategic imperatives for American leadership. Trump’s approach to this challenge will reveal much about his second-term foreign policy priorities and methods. If he can successfully navigate the complex web of regional interests, domestic politics, and international pressure to help bring the war to a conclusion, it would represent a significant diplomatic achievement with implications far beyond the Middle East. However, should he prove unwilling to push Netanyahu toward difficult compromises necessary for peace, the conflict may well continue indefinitely, with devastating consequences for all involved. The ultimate test of Trump’s self-proclaimed dealmaking abilities may lie in whether he can transform his personal relationship with Netanyahu from a diplomatic asset into a genuine pathway toward peace.