Regional peace or controlled stability? The Trump doctrine in motion
U.S. insistence on ensuring the success of President Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza and to lay the foundations for regional peace has been reflected not only in his repeated statements, but also in high-level visits — from the Vice President to the Secretary of State — to Israel. These moves aim to consolidate the ceasefire and ensure a transition to the second phase of the agreement, the most complex and decisive stage, which may also require a shift in Washington’s approach to the issue of weapons in Gaza and the future role of Hamas.
In essence, President Trump’s vision appears to be a reproduction of his earlier approach during his first administration — the “Deal of the Century” and the “Abraham Accords” — but this time on a broader and more comprehensive scale. It is built on two key pillars: expanding the Abraham Accords to serve as an umbrella for regional peace, and advancing major developmental and economic projects that interconnect the region through shared commercial interests.
Once the transition to the second phase of the Gaza agreement is secured — whether through diplomacy or by deploying international or Arab forces — the White House will move toward broadening the Abraham framework and celebrating its diplomatic success. This will require strong American momentum and pressure to ensure these steps succeed, along with a decisive U.S. presence to enforce certain terms on all parties.
In this context, Washington’s insistence on preventing the formal announcement of the annexation of the West Bank stands out as a key objective, aimed at preserving the fragile consensus supporting Trump’s regional vision. The President himself has spoken of commitments made to Arab states to halt the annexation, reflecting Washington’s determination to maintain alignment around its vision. The coming phase will require regional participation in securing Gaza, contributing to reconstruction, and perhaps even joining the Abraham Accords formally as part of the U.S. framework for regional peace.
Practically speaking, however, U.S. pressure remains largely theoretical — preventing formal declarations more than reversing Israel’s de facto annexation moves. This gap suggests a form of “political sedation” that may ease diplomatic tensions but fails to impose tangible realities on the ground.
Paradoxically, the Knesset’s vote and the U.S. administration’s opposition to formal annexation may actually strengthen Prime Minister Netanyahu’s standing in Washington, portraying him as a reliable partner — perhaps the only one capable of navigating Israel’s internal challenges and advancing Trump’s regional peace vision.
Once the second phase in Gaza is consolidated, Washington will likely seek to expand this “regional peace” project across the Middle East, turning attention to unresolved fronts — foremost among them Lebanon and Hezbollah’s weapons. This aligns with Israel’s and Netanyahu’s long-standing desire for a definitive resolution, fitting neatly within Trump’s broader vision for a new regional order.
Lebanon, therefore, becomes a true test: either deliver measurable results in line with international expectations, or face the risk of renewed military options. Yet a diplomatic containment approach remains possible — Lebanese political steps could maintain a fragile political balance around the party. Still, for Washington, this is not only about Hezbollah’s arsenal, but about ensuring no disruption to the American peace framework.
At the same time, Hezbollah faces unprecedented U.S. pressure, compounded by Washington’s threats to strike drug cartels in Venezuela allegedly linked to the party’s operations. The U.S. Senate recently held a session dedicated to Hezbollah’s activities in Latin America, its financing networks, and the need for additional sanctions on its smuggling and funding structures.
The simultaneous signals of potential military escalation on select fronts and the push to expand the Abraham Accords are likely to define the coming stage as Washington moves to impose President Trump’s so-called “regional peace” vision. anb
U.S. insistence on ensuring the success of President Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza and to lay the foundations for regional peace has been reflected not only in his repeated statements, but also in high-level visits — from the Vice President to the Secretary of State — to Israel. These moves aim to consolidate the ceasefire and ensure a transition to the second phase of the agreement, the most complex and decisive stage, which may also require a shift in Washington’s approach to the issue of weapons in Gaza and the future role of Hamas.
In essence, President Trump’s vision appears to be a reproduction of his earlier approach during his first administration — the “Deal of the Century” and the “Abraham Accords” — but this time on a broader and more comprehensive scale. It is built on two key pillars: expanding the Abraham Accords to serve as an umbrella for regional peace, and advancing major developmental and economic projects that interconnect the region through shared commercial interests.
Once the transition to the second phase of the Gaza agreement is secured — whether through diplomacy or by deploying international or Arab forces — the White House will move toward broadening the Abraham framework and celebrating its diplomatic success. This will require strong American momentum and pressure to ensure these steps succeed, along with a decisive U.S. presence to enforce certain terms on all parties.
In this context, Washington’s insistence on preventing the formal announcement of the annexation of the West Bank stands out as a key objective, aimed at preserving the fragile consensus supporting Trump’s regional vision. The President himself has spoken of commitments made to Arab states to halt the annexation, reflecting Washington’s determination to maintain alignment around its vision. The coming phase will require regional participation in securing Gaza, contributing to reconstruction, and perhaps even joining the Abraham Accords formally as part of the U.S. framework for regional peace.
Practically speaking, however, U.S. pressure remains largely theoretical — preventing formal declarations more than reversing Israel’s de facto annexation moves. This gap suggests a form of “political sedation” that may ease diplomatic tensions but fails to impose tangible realities on the ground.
Paradoxically, the Knesset’s vote and the U.S. administration’s opposition to formal annexation may actually strengthen Prime Minister Netanyahu’s standing in Washington, portraying him as a reliable partner — perhaps the only one capable of navigating Israel’s internal challenges and advancing Trump’s regional peace vision.
Once the second phase in Gaza is consolidated, Washington will likely seek to expand this “regional peace” project across the Middle East, turning attention to unresolved fronts — foremost among them Lebanon and Hezbollah’s weapons. This aligns with Israel’s and Netanyahu’s long-standing desire for a definitive resolution, fitting neatly within Trump’s broader vision for a new regional order.
Lebanon, therefore, becomes a true test: either deliver measurable results in line with international expectations, or face the risk of renewed military options. Yet a diplomatic containment approach remains possible — Lebanese political steps could maintain a fragile political balance around the party. Still, for Washington, this is not only about Hezbollah’s arsenal, but about ensuring no disruption to the American peace framework.
At the same time, Hezbollah faces unprecedented U.S. pressure, compounded by Washington’s threats to strike drug cartels in Venezuela allegedly linked to the party’s operations. The U.S. Senate recently held a session dedicated to Hezbollah’s activities in Latin America, its financing networks, and the need for additional sanctions on its smuggling and funding structures.
The simultaneous signals of potential military escalation on select fronts and the push to expand the Abraham Accords are likely to define the coming stage as Washington moves to impose President Trump’s so-called “regional peace” vision. anb
U.S. insistence on ensuring the success of President Trump’s plan to end the war in Gaza and to lay the foundations for regional peace has been reflected not only in his repeated statements, but also in high-level visits — from the Vice President to the Secretary of State — to Israel. These moves aim to consolidate the ceasefire and ensure a transition to the second phase of the agreement, the most complex and decisive stage, which may also require a shift in Washington’s approach to the issue of weapons in Gaza and the future role of Hamas.
In essence, President Trump’s vision appears to be a reproduction of his earlier approach during his first administration — the “Deal of the Century” and the “Abraham Accords” — but this time on a broader and more comprehensive scale. It is built on two key pillars: expanding the Abraham Accords to serve as an umbrella for regional peace, and advancing major developmental and economic projects that interconnect the region through shared commercial interests.
Once the transition to the second phase of the Gaza agreement is secured — whether through diplomacy or by deploying international or Arab forces — the White House will move toward broadening the Abraham framework and celebrating its diplomatic success. This will require strong American momentum and pressure to ensure these steps succeed, along with a decisive U.S. presence to enforce certain terms on all parties.
In this context, Washington’s insistence on preventing the formal announcement of the annexation of the West Bank stands out as a key objective, aimed at preserving the fragile consensus supporting Trump’s regional vision. The President himself has spoken of commitments made to Arab states to halt the annexation, reflecting Washington’s determination to maintain alignment around its vision. The coming phase will require regional participation in securing Gaza, contributing to reconstruction, and perhaps even joining the Abraham Accords formally as part of the U.S. framework for regional peace.
Practically speaking, however, U.S. pressure remains largely theoretical — preventing formal declarations more than reversing Israel’s de facto annexation moves. This gap suggests a form of “political sedation” that may ease diplomatic tensions but fails to impose tangible realities on the ground.
Paradoxically, the Knesset’s vote and the U.S. administration’s opposition to formal annexation may actually strengthen Prime Minister Netanyahu’s standing in Washington, portraying him as a reliable partner — perhaps the only one capable of navigating Israel’s internal challenges and advancing Trump’s regional peace vision.
Once the second phase in Gaza is consolidated, Washington will likely seek to expand this “regional peace” project across the Middle East, turning attention to unresolved fronts — foremost among them Lebanon and Hezbollah’s weapons. This aligns with Israel’s and Netanyahu’s long-standing desire for a definitive resolution, fitting neatly within Trump’s broader vision for a new regional order.
Lebanon, therefore, becomes a true test: either deliver measurable results in line with international expectations, or face the risk of renewed military options. Yet a diplomatic containment approach remains possible — Lebanese political steps could maintain a fragile political balance around the party. Still, for Washington, this is not only about Hezbollah’s arsenal, but about ensuring no disruption to the American peace framework.
At the same time, Hezbollah faces unprecedented U.S. pressure, compounded by Washington’s threats to strike drug cartels in Venezuela allegedly linked to the party’s operations. The U.S. Senate recently held a session dedicated to Hezbollah’s activities in Latin America, its financing networks, and the need for additional sanctions on its smuggling and funding structures.
The simultaneous signals of potential military escalation on select fronts and the push to expand the Abraham Accords are likely to define the coming stage as Washington moves to impose President Trump’s so-called “regional peace” vision. anb
comments
Regional peace or controlled stability? The Trump doctrine in motion
comments