While most estimates and political trends suggest a grim outlook for the Middle East in the short and medium term, shaped by escalating Israeli policies and their far-reaching repercussions, this view is further reinforced by the anticipated return of US President-elect Donald Trump, whose hardline policy framework—reminiscent of Trump 1.0—is expected to dominate when he officially takes office in January 2025.
This article, however, is based on the assumption that Trump 2.0 is unlikely to mirror the Trump 1.0 era entirely, given the shifts in both the regional and global landscape, as well as the changes within the United States and and possibly even in the president himself. Additionally, the inherent complexity and diversity of actors within the US political system, coupled with domestic Israeli factors that may compel a halt to the ongoing escalation, suggest that the current situation cannot be viewed in isolation. The evolving dynamics of the regional context, over a year into the war and its escalation, further complicate the outlook.
Critical Variables
The word crisis dominates political discourse, frequently appearing in decision-making circles worldwide, research centers, and even in public discourse, as it encapsulates the present and potentially future state of the Middle East. This is particularly true given that the current US administration, under President Joe Biden, has spent over a year and a month since the onset of the ongoing war, focusing more on “adapting to the crisis” than “seeking its resolution.” It has also prioritized establishing a “balance of power” over a “balance of interests” in the region, aligning with the Israeli vision, which, according to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seeks to reshape the region in a way that neutralizes perceived threats to the Hebrew state and enforces a new reality that supports this outlook.
While this scenario may seem bleak, certain variables could act as key drivers for shaping a different narrative—one that anticipates an end to the current escalation in the short and medium term, thereby opening the door to formulating scenarios for the “day after,” not just in Gaza but across the broader region. The most significant of these variables can be outlined as follows:
1. Trump’s Pursuit of a Landmark Deal: A prominent assumption regarding Trump’s potential return to the White House and its potential impact on the Middle East and ongoing regional escalation is his inclination to secure a monumental achievement in American foreign policy early in his new term. This would likely involve halting the cycle of war and escalation in the Middle East, with parallels potentially drawn to resolving the Ukrainian war. This assumption stems from three key factors: first, Trump’s approach to politics mirrors his business-oriented mindset, viewing state management as akin to corporate deal-making, which positions him to seek a comprehensive resolution as part of a broader agreement. Second, recent reports indicate Trump has urged Netanyahu to delay concluding the war until his presidency begins, ensuring the Democrats cannot capitalize on such a development as an electoral advantage. Third, Trump’s first presidency demonstrated his preference for minimizing direct US military involvement in foreign conflicts. Following his recent victory, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent political figure closely aligned with Trump and anticipated to play a significant role in the new administration, revealed that Trump intends to withdraw US forces stationed in northern Syria. This statement serves as a critical clue to Trump’s likely stance on US involvement in the region’s conflicts. Moreover, during his campaign, Trump emphasized his priority for a strong US military devoted primarily to safeguarding US territory.
Practically, this assumption translates into Trump crafting a grand deal centered on halting the current war across its multiple fronts in exchange for new arrangements regarding the “day after”. This could involve reviving the “Abraham Accords,” which Trump hailed as his most significant foreign policy success, particularly by advancing Saudi-Israeli normalization and promoting a narrative that might also cater to Netanyahu’s ego by proclaiming Israel’s victory in the conflict, coupled with an intensified “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran to curb its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile projects. However, the most concerning aspect of this scenario is Trump’s potential inclination toward policies that undermine the Palestinian cause, including support for Israeli plans to annex the occupied West Bank and divide the Gaza Strip. This approach would align with the traditional US strategy of “managing the crisis” rather than resolving it.
2. Israel’s Prolonged Attrition State: Israel is currently enduring an unprecedented state of attrition not seen since its occupation of the Palestinian territories. This conflict has become Israel’s longest war in terms of duration and its most significant in terms of strategic, economic, human, and security losses. Despite inflicting substantial damage on resistance factions like Hezbollah and Hamas—through targeted assassinations of key leaders and extensive destruction of infrastructure—these measures have failed to secure lasting peace for the Hebrew state. Instead, Israel’s domestic front is now under continuous threat, with a relentless erosion of the deterrence system, let alone the resurgence of individual attacks within Israel, which has emerged as a particularly perilous challenge. Meanwhile, the country’s air defense systems are nearing breakdown, overwhelmed by the relentless barrage of rockets, especially from the Lebanese front. Adding to these challenges, the prolonged conflict has unraveled the longstanding social contract between Israeli citizens and their government, a contract that for decades rested firmly on the promise of ‘security.”
Add to this the dynamics of the battlefield, as the situation remains dire for Israeli forces. In Gaza, confrontations persist across most areas of the Strip, where resistance factions are engaged in a grueling war of attrition, significantly straining Israeli forces. Meanwhile, on the Lebanese front, Israel has been unable to secure any positions along the front lines in southern Lebanon’s three regional divisions, enduring substantial casualties in its clashes with Hezbollah fighters. Such setbacks have reportedly compelled senior Israeli security officials to inform the political leadership that the military has reached the peak of its capabilities in this conflict. They caution that prolonging the war of attrition will only exacerbate losses and intensify the pressures on Israel.
3. Mounting Strains from Israel’s Domestic Front: The ongoing war of attrition with resistance factions has exacted a heavy toll on Israel, exposing its inability to achieve critical strategic objectives. Efforts to recover hostages, restore the country’s deterrence capability, and resettle displaced residents near Gaza and the northern territories have faltered, deepening despair within the Israeli populace, which has triggered periodic demonstrations, with calls intensifying for an end to the conflict and an agreement to secure the hostages’ release. Notably, a recent poll by the Israel Democracy Institute revealed that 69% of Israelis favor a ceasefire agreement, reflecting widespread discontent within the public.
The internal pressures within Israel extend beyond public sentiment, with tensions between the political and security spheres recently coming to the forefront. This crisis has been fueled by two key developments: the dismissal of former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant and the subsequent appointment of the hardline Israel Katz as his replacement, as well as the emergence of leaks implicating Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office in various scandals and corruption cases. These leaks are widely believed to stem from discord between the political and security leadership. Furthermore, the Israeli Central Court has denied Netanyahu’s request to delay his testimony in the corruption cases against him, scheduling the hearings to resume in early September.
The internal dynamics in Israel point to a scenario where mounting pressures might drive the government towards a ceasefire but are unlikely to dismantle the ruling coalition. Netanyahu’s coalition currently enjoys a 68-seat majority in the Knesset, thanks to the inclusion of the New Hope party under Gideon Sa’ar. This majority secures Netanyahu against the prospect of early elections and supports his ability to complete his term over the next two years. Nonetheless, this stability faces a potential threat from Itamar Ben-Gvir, whose faction holds six seats and has signaled a readiness to withdraw from the coalition, potentially destabilizing the current political framework.
4. Decisive Negotiations Regarding Lebanon: One key factor that bolsters the likelihood of a truce being achieved in the short to medium term lies in the recent developments on the Lebanese front. Militarily, Israeli forces continue to face significant challenges, unable to secure positions in southern Lebanon and enduring heavy losses, particularly as Hezbollah reorganizes its ranks and employs decentralized strategies in managing military operations. Politically, the situation has seen notable activity in recent days, with Us Ambassador to Lebanon Lisa Johnson presenting a draft agreement to Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri aimed at de-escalating tensions. Sources close to Hezbollah and Speaker Berri have revealed that Berri has conveyed Hezbollah’s response to the US embassy in Beirut. These sources also suggest Hezbollah is approaching the proposal with cautious openness, heightening the potential for a breakthrough on the Lebanese front.
Amid efforts to achieve a breakthrough on the Lebanese front, it became evident that Israel has significantly escalated its targeting and bombing operations in southern Lebanon, the southern suburbs of Beirut, and even Beirut itself. This intensified Israeli activity can be interpreted as an attempt to apply pressure and bolster its negotiating position. In political literature “agreements, in their details and provisions, often mirror the balance of power among the conflicting parties on the ground. Thus, the recent surge in military operations by both Hezbollah and Israel reflects not only a tit-for-tat escalation but also a deliberate attempt by both sides to fortify their negotiating positions.
In conclusion, there are signs and ongoing developments that raise the prospect of a scenario contrary to the dominant pessimistic outlook on the region’s situation. This alternative perspective of potential calm hinges on several critical determinants. Foremost is Trump’s handling of the regional crisis and the level of pressure he may exert on Israel to foster de-escalation. The second factor pertains to the internal political outcomes in Tel Aviv, while the third relates to the current realities and equations on the ground. Nonetheless, it is clear that whatever scenario concludes the ongoing war will have significant implications for the discourse surrounding “the day after.”
