Why Trump can't quit the Middle East

Behind this moment lies a reshaped map of the Middle East: new security arrangements between Israel and Syria, a growing inclination toward de-escalation with Iran in the Gulf, and Israeli efforts to restore internal stability.

In this context, the Gaza ceasefire deal may represent an opportunity to open broader paths toward peace. Over the decades, the region has experienced many conferences and agreements, from Madrid to Oslo to Sharm El-Sheikh and Camp David, yet peace has remained either incomplete or indefinitely delayed.

This time, the situation may be different because the balance of power has already shifted. Iran and the Axis of Resistance are experiencing their weakest period in years. Hezbollah is under various forms of pressure, the Assad regime has diminished in influence, and Hamas has emerged from the war both exhausted and internally divided.

The recent setbacks of the so-called Iranian Crescent may give the peace process a rare chance to advance, especially with the renewed momentum surrounding the two-state solution and the formal recognition of Palestine by more than 150 countries.

Bumpy road ahead

Still, enforcing a halt to the war in Gaza, facilitating a hostage exchange, and ensuring Israeli withdrawals are not sufficient to secure lasting peace. The most difficult stages remain ahead. How will Hamas be disarmed, and which weapons will be removed? Who will govern Gaza? How will a Palestinian Authority be built that is capable of both managing daily affairs and representing its people on the international stage?

These are not minor technicalities. They are fundamental questions that will determine whether the agreement marks a genuine step toward peace or simply another temporary truce. They will decide whether the Gaza ceasefire deal becomes a turning point or another missed opportunity in a region marked by recurring disappointments.

The outcome will also reflect on whether Trump's upcoming tour, along with peace and reconstruction summits, will differ from past initiatives or fade into the long and stubborn history of efforts that never fully materialised.

The Middle East is reshaping its relationship with Washington, sometimes through wars and sometimes through agreements, but complete absence is never an option. Those who step away are pulled back, and those who announce their retirement often find themselves once again at the centre of events.

Trump is returning to a stage he once tried to leave, but the roles have shifted. The region is no longer simply a testing ground for power. It has become a place where politics and rationality are being put to the test. Peace is no longer a moral slogan. It is now an urgent necessity. Wars have exhausted all sides, economies are searching for stability, and the world needs a Middle East that is steady and predictable rather than one that delivers new surprises each day.

Trump is no longer watching from the sidelines. He is once again involved, attempting to broker peace, as others before him have done. The agreement that brought him back to the forefront has also returned Washington to a leading position, linking his name to a possible new path for the region.

Times have changed and conditions have shifted, but Trump has chosen to take part in shaping the next phase, or at least to make the attempt. He aspired to lead a summit that examined the future of the Middle East more deeply than any of his American predecessors.

The Middle East does not forgive absence, and no one is ever truly allowed to retire from its affairs. Its wounds are deep and lasting. Healing them requires a patient leader and an American president with endurance and resolve.