Ongoing reports and analysis

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled off a significant diplomatic breakthrough with the recent Israel-Hamas cease-fire and Gaza peace plan. The key to Trump’s success was his willingness to (finally) pressure Israel. Trump used his frustration, as well as that of Arab states, following Israel’s missile strike on Doha in September to create a new degree of strategic ambiguity with Israel—that is, uncertainty whether the United States would still support Israel if opted to continue the war in Gaza – if Tel Aviv opted to continue the war in Gaza—to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept terms that he otherwise would not have. It was a masterful strategic move.

The danger now, however, is that Trump may deviate from this strategy of stepping back and, in the process, do significant damage to U.S. security interests. By signing a document related to the cease-fire himself (which is unusual because the United States is not a direct party to the conflict), Trump clearly sees the peace deal in bigger terms, notably as the “historic dawn of a new Middle East,” according to him.

U.S. President Donald Trump pulled off a significant diplomatic breakthrough with the recent Israel-Hamas cease-fire and Gaza peace plan. The key to Trump’s success was his willingness to (finally) pressure Israel. Trump used his frustration, as well as that of Arab states, following Israel’s missile strike on Doha in September to create a new degree of strategic ambiguity with Israel—that is, uncertainty whether the United States would still support Israel if opted to continue the war in Gaza – if Tel Aviv opted to continue the war in Gaza—to get Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to accept terms that he otherwise would not have. It was a masterful strategic move.

The danger now, however, is that Trump may deviate from this strategy of stepping back and, in the process, do significant damage to U.S. security interests. By signing a document related to the cease-fire himself (which is unusual because the United States is not a direct party to the conflict), Trump clearly sees the peace deal in bigger terms, notably as the “historic dawn of a new Middle East,” according to him.

With his reputation—and ego—now on the line to deliver this transformation, Trump’s grand vision for the region could lead him to take on a raft of new commitments in the Middle East that are at odds with U.S. interests. In short, if Trump isn’t careful, Washington might come to “own” peace and stability in Gaza and the Middle East in ways that leave the United States overstretched and tied down in the region as bigger challenges gather elsewhere.

To avoid this, Trump needs to expand strategic ambiguity with Israel, which is especially important now that Israel has already broken the cease-fire deal that Trump just negotiated. He should also stick to his promise to limit U.S. military support for the peace agreement (i.e., no peacekeeping forces in Gaza) and avoid making additional security pledges to Arab states, like the one he gave Qatar after Israel’s strike on Doha. In general, a U.S. policy of leaning away from the Middle East will be good for U.S. interests and help facilitate the peace and stability that Trump wants.

To put America first, Trump needs to center Middle East policy on U.S. interests, not grand visions for regional transformation. That starts by recognizing that the United States has very limited strategic interests at stake in the region today.

Neither oil nor terrorism, the two main drivers of U.S. military engagement in the Middle East historically, currently pose a major security issue for the United States. The country is now a net exporter of oil, and thus not dependent on the Middle East for its energy needs. The 2019

© Foreign Policy