Anyone closely following recent U.S. statements—particularly those made by Special Envoy Stephen Whitkoff regarding his hopes to achieve progress in ceasefire efforts in Gaza before or during President Donald Trump’s regional visit—can sense that far more is unfolding behind the scenes than just a truce or a prisoner exchange deal. The visit, which includes Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar, while notably excluding the Israeli entity, carries clear political and security messages aimed at redrawing regional alliances and understandings according to a cautious and calculated American vision.
اضافة اعلان
The exclusion of the Israeli entity from Trump’s tour, despite his unwavering military and political support for Israel, is neither a passing decision nor a mere protocol matter. The White House is acutely aware that the bloody war in Gaza has become a politically costly burden, particularly amid growing international criticism and escalating media pressure. Any presidential visit to Tel Aviv at this moment would be perceived as an overt alignment with one side in a highly unbalanced conflict and would place Washington on the defensive before the global community—especially since the daily massacres in Gaza are no longer being overlooked in Western capitals.
The choice of the three Gulf states is also far from random. The U.S. administration seeks to secure an Arab position regarding both the war and ceasefire tracks in Gaza, aiming to contain the Palestinian issue within specific regional channels. At the same time, Washington is keen to reaffirm that its partnership with these Gulf capitals remains a cornerstone of its Middle East strategy amid ongoing regional instability.
Another notable aspect is the timing of Whitkoff’s remarks about daily efforts involving Qatar, Egypt, and Israel, coinciding with Trump’s statements about delivering food aid to Gaza’s population—paired with accusations against Hamas of seizing that aid. This dual American narrative reflects a thinly veiled attempt to portray the U.S. as a humanitarian actor “seeking to alleviate suffering,” while simultaneously providing political and security cover for Israel to continue its military operations without a clear time limit.
At its core, it is evident that Washington recognizes the impossibility of a military resolution to the conflict, and that maintaining the current state of affairs threatens regional stability and hampers efforts to reprioritize the Middle East agenda. In this light, Trump’s visit appears to be an attempt to establish a temporary ceasefire under Arab guarantees, while quietly opening a window for post-war negotiations—aimed at curbing Hamas’s power and enforcing a new security reality in both Gaza and the West Bank.
In this context, recent American statements about the need to disarm Hamas, combined with daily coordination with involved parties, seem more like efforts to set political and security red lines for any future agreement. For Washington, the issue is no longer just about recovering hostages, but about reshaping the balance of power in Gaza and the region in a way that renders the resistance containable.
Therefore, Trump’s visit is far from a routine tour—it represents a critical juncture in an ongoing conflict. The war on Gaza is no longer a limited military confrontation; it has evolved into a complex regional and international bargaining chip, being used to reposition powers and forge future agreements.
Amid this clouded landscape, the one constant remains: the Palestinian people—despite all attempts at isolation, pressure, and starvation—continue to prove that their will surpasses all political calculations, and that the battlefield will remain, as always, the true arena where the limits of settlements and the contours of reconciliation are defined.
