Trump would score an early foreign-policy win with a Gaza ceasefire

Donald Trump has made a long list of promises for what will be done on “day one” of his second term in the White House. Peace in the Middle East was not one of them. Yet it looks increasingly likely that the president-elect will be sworn in having just helped to secure a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, to (at least temporarily) end the war in Gaza. 

Trump has made his feelings clear about the war for some time: in line with his broader views about foreign conflict, he wanted the war brought to an end. While positioning himself as a strong ally of Israel, the president-elect was also calling for swift action in the lead-up to last year’s election, saying in April: “What I said very plainly is get it over with, and let’s get back to peace and stop killing people. And that’s a very simple statement. Get it over with.”

Is this Trump’s 1981 moment?

Since his landslide win in November, it seems everyone has been taking his instructions more seriously. A final draft of a ceasefire deal has been circulated by mediators, which is expected to include a return of up to thirty-three Israeli hostages and a massive influx of humanitarian aid into Gaza. Both Joe Biden’s Middle East envoy Brett McGurk and Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff are working together in Doha this morning to see that the deal gets over the line.

Is this Trump’s 1981 moment, when incoming President Ronald Reagan saw fifty-two Americans being held in the US Embassy in Tehran released by Iran the day he was sworn in? There are certain similarities, not least the pressure imposed by both president-elects to have the conflict resolved by the time they enter office. But perhaps the better comparison is the use of the transition period: the two-plus months between Election Day and the inauguration, when handovers between administrations take place.

While some doubt the use of this fairly lengthy period, the best-case scenarios can see genuine bipartisan efforts which lead to good outcomes. Although it took the weight of Reagan’s words to get Iran to free the hostages — and the threat of action, which had not been convincing under President Jimmy Carter — it was the negotiations and legal work done by Carter’s administration that also proved vital for getting them home. As Reagan started his first day in the White House, an ousted Carter went to greet the Americans in West Germany, celebrating their release after 444 days in captivity. A similar scene could play out now, as both Biden and Trump’s teams work together to secure more hostage releases (seven American citizens are still being held in the tunnels).

It’s unlikely any celebrations of bipartisan effort will last long. It’s impossible to separate the decision to come to an agreement now and the change in American leadership next week: the calculation being that it is impossible to be sure how President Trump would handle the war. It’s a point Trump will want to make loudly and repeatedly, as such a big part of his third campaign has been a more isolationist-leaning version of “peace through strength.” 

The president-elect will be hoping that this foreign-policy victory will boost other parts of his agenda: primarily his pledge to bring Russia’s war to an end, too. The ceasefire also creates an opportunity to get the relationships created through one of Trump’s biggest foreign policy initiatives in his first term — the Abraham Accords — back on track.

Nothing is likely to tie up that neatly. Even if a ceasefire is agreed, it is difficult to see how Israel brings its military operations to an end if not every hostage has been released. And while the Kremlin has signaled “political will” to speak to Trump about the war, there is no indication — as there has been in the Middle East — that this conflict will end simply due to the president-elect’s rival.

Still, if the ceasefire is indeed agreed, it will bolster Trump’s established playbook for negotiating foreign affairs: create an air of uncertainty to make agreeing a deal the better option. It’s a risky model. But it’s one that Americans increasingly think works.