To Earn A Middle East Legacy, Trump Must Push Back On His Base, His Allies, And His Adversaries
The prospects for wide ranging Middle East peace are perhaps technically greater now than at any time in the last 30 years. Iran's proxies have been deeply battered, the regime of Iran’s brutal ally Assad in Syria has fallen, and Iran’s regime itself has suffered the biggest threat to its existence since the 1979 Revolution. Moreover, there’s not just rubble about, we have an existing roadmap for Arab-Israeli peace — the Abraham Accords — that Trump himself officiated in 2020. All the tools for broader regional stability are on the table—including prospects for deep economic integration and mutually-supporting swaps of scarce resources, like water and energy.
This is in some ways a near-miraculous outcome, and one that Palestinians and Israelis have paid for in blood and suffering. The greatest number of casualties are Palestinian, of course, but notwithstanding Netanyahu’s criminal overreach, Hamas’ crime on 10/7 will haunt both Palestinians and Israelis for a long, long time.
But as ever, "close" is a relative concept in this region.
Easy As Pie — Not So Fast…
Trump has declared absolute victory over Iran and seems to expects quick, uncomplicated peace with Tehran, and a swift restart to Israeli-Saudi normalization. Israel’s PM Netanyahu talks as if retrieving Israeli hostages from Hamas will now be straightforward, even as Trump presses for Israeli judges to dismiss corruption charges against him so he can "do his job better." Taken at face value, neither leaders are approaching these challenges in ways likely to push peace to its limits. This requires a great leveling — with Americans, and the people of the region.
The Iran Nuclear Challenge
While political dispute remains—encouraged by Trump's maximalist statements—over exactly how badly Iran's nuclear program was damaged by recent Israeli strikes, the fact that damage was severe is not really in question. It's also increasingly clear Iran’s enrichment capacity was not "totally obliterated" as Trump claims. According to the IAEA, Iran could potentially restore a smaller but active nuclear program within months.
This means the US will need to exert sustained pressure on Iran’s leadership to head off catastrophic reversal of fortune– and escalating reprisals by the regime against its own people, whose interests the United States should strongly consider.
Iran may well have concealed critical components (and feedstock) before the strikes. Those materials cannot be left unfettered. Trump seems reluctant to acknowledge this reality because it undermines his narrative of total victory and puts him at odds with parts of his base, which either have no appetite for extended military engagements — or believe that Israel’s victory is a sign of the Second Coming.
Meanwhile, Trump speaks of "gifting" Iran a civilian nuclear program in return for giving up any ‘future’ enrichment program, apparently expecting Arab Gulf states to foot the bill. The notion that Gulf states would fund an Iranian civilian nuclear program without the US’ assuring Iran’s current are contained, is fantasy.
The only ‘peace’ deal worth pursuing requires immediate, intense pressure to get IAEA inspectors back on the ground accounting for and removing any and all weapons material. Trump should also make it clear that human rights are a part of the price for leaving the regime intact. All of this will also will require giving the Iranian regime a face-saving mechanism.
The Palestinian State Requirement
Regarding Hamas, the hostages, and the war in Gaza, real peace requires Netanyahu to reverse much of his previous rhetoric and actions – which will come as a major affront to the rhetoric of Netanyahu’s extremist government – and many in Trump’s base. Israel would need to withdraw from Gaza and commit to Palestinian sovereignty — minus Hamas — over a rebuilt Gaza, which would then enable the Abraham Accords to expand. The question of how to separate Hamas hardliners, I tackle in previous posts. But when it comes down to it there may be no avoiding the fact that unspeakable violence on both sides, is what might ultimately produce a Palestinian state — or not.
It’s worth noting that other leaders on both the Israeli and Arab sides have faced this ‘walkback’ predicament before – Egypt’s President Sadat, and Israel’s PM Rabin and others– paid the ultimate price for their peace overtures. Arafat was said to have ditched the Oslo Accords, in part or more, for fear he would be assassinated.
There were those who desperately hoped Trump had made a Gaza deal the prerequisite for striking Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities. There’s no sign of that, as yet. But one of the best ways Trump can sell peace with the Palestinians would be to commit to Israel to keep the current Iranian regime non-nuclear.
Trump's Choice: Puffery or Legacy?
If Trump should decide he wants his lasting legacy to be as a Middle East peacemaker, that achievement is tantalizingly within reach. But he can't have his yellowcake and eat it too. He faces a fundamental choice between feeding his base, or securing a truly historic and transformative Middle East legacy. To redeem it he would need to stick to the facts and assume the mantle of a serious, if unconventional, global statesman.
Success requires two interconnected deals:
Verifiable and fail-safe protocols for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons components, those they have now, and those they might seek to develop in the future.
A Israeli-Palestinian settlement that generates a Palestinian state in Gaza, free of Hamas, and broader regional normalization.
Both deals demand that Trump engage in substantive, complex diplomacy, with an articulate, compelling, and transparent sales pitch to multiple constituencies, not least of which the American people. Whether Trump — or the increasingly politicized and attenuated US foreign policy and national security bureaucracies — have what it takes — remains the central question for regional stability.
The Middle East-Told Slant offers a non-partisan, practitioner's perspective on Middle East politics, conflict, and culture. Written by a former US diplomat, Senior Middle East Analyst, and author of "Benghazi: A New History" (Hachette, 2022) and the forthcoming "Red Sea: A History of the World's Most Volatile Waterway." To receive weekly posts and support this project, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. I offer paid subscribers a complimentary copy of any of my books in print (equivalent to the cost of the subscription — DM me to redeem).
As always Ethan, thanks for cutting through the political rhetoric in the effort of finding a constructive way forward out of so much death and destruction. A side of me thinks it may be for the best that the Trump team has declared "Mission Accomplished" with the "total obliteration" line with respect to Iran's nuclear program. The opposite, or reality, will probably entail much deeper engagement or even direct intervention in Iran. At the end of the 1991 Gulf War, H.W. Bush was able to compel Saddam to accept the inspections regime because he held a loaded gun--the credible threat of continuing to the ground advance to Baghdad with half a million US troops and removing the Ba'th from power. As international support for inspections and sanctions waned during the 1990s, the US increasingly resorted to the threat or use of strikes... The Iranians may very well call Trump and even Bibi's bluff and say go ahead with trying to bomb us into compliance, an open ended commitment that likely wouldn't go over well politically in either the US or Israel......
Many have indulged in the fantasy that this deeply flawed person is the hero of their dreams. As soon as they do that he does the one thing he always does: pick their pockets (or the other p word). Take heed, my friend, and consider what role you play.