Dr. Amer Al Sabaileh

After President Trump enforced a ceasefire in Gaza, the region is now shifting to the second and more significant phase according to the American president’s own vision — one that insists the cessation of war in Gaza marks the beginning of a new path toward peace in the Middle East. Accordingly, his decision to visit the region, beginning with Israel to address the Knesset and then heading to Egypt, can be read as an attempt to redraw the scene of regional peace that Trump envisions.

Trump, long driven by the idea of regional peace since his first term — built on two pillars, the “Deal of the Century” and the “Abraham Accords” — now returns through a policy of ceasefire and the imposition of solutions. This aligns with the changes that followed October 7. Just as the war began in Gaza, Trump returns through Gaza to announce a vision that extends far beyond it, within an American-imposed framework of regional peace.

The central question, however, concerns a “peace imposed on everyone” and its ability to endure and succeed, as well as its impact on the parties opposing or obstructing it. Therefore, it is difficult to assume that the American-sponsored ceasefire in Gaza will hold without regional consequences. Some will be pressured to adapt to the emerging solutions, while others will have peace forced upon them — by power, not persuasion. In other words, the region may face two options: join the Abraham Accords or risk military confrontation.

The peace that has long stumbled is now being imposed through a new form of diplomacy — a “diplomacy of imposition” — amid complete American dominance of the regional scene, and in the absence of viable solutions after two years of open fronts. During his first term, President Trump presented ideas for regional peace without enforcing them — from the “Deal of the Century” to the “Abraham Accords,” which he framed as the umbrella for the coming peace. Yet the post-Gaza landscape has created a vacuum that Washington seeks to fill by imposing solutions on all.

Such peace cannot be classified as genuine reconciliation, yet it undoubtedly represents a form of pragmatic, American-enforced stability. It arises not only from the transformations that have reshaped the region’s battlefields, but also in parallel with Washington’s readiness — and willingness — to brandish the option of war. Hence, this new American diplomacy is not grounded in negotiation or dialogue, but in deterrence and imposition.

Trump’s desire to enforce a formula that leaves everyone facing a fait accompli may be described as a “peace plan,” but in essence, it is a mandated coexistence — one that may not endure for long, yet whose rejection at this stage could carry a much higher cost. Beyond Gaza, the region may witness this model of imposed solutions extending elsewhere — first within Israel’s immediate geography, including Syria and Lebanon, and later toward those opposing or obstructing the American vision of peace, potentially encompassing Iraq, Yemen, and most notably, Iran.

President Trump has already outlined the features of the coming stage. His insistence on visiting the region and addressing the Israeli Knesset — coinciding with the release of Israeli hostages — followed by his visit to Egypt to attend the signing of the Gaza agreement and to unveil his vision of regional peace, signals that the “American formula for resolution” has become the only active framework, one his administration is determined to impose on all.

For while the solution may begin in Gaza, it will certainly not end there. The broader project of regional peace — especially as Trump’s central objective is to improve Israel’s relations with all — now stands as the defining vision of his policy. Linking the Gaza ceasefire to the launch of Trump’s Middle East peace framework ultimately means that Gaza represents only one chapter in a wider American blueprint for the entire region.