The Gaza ceasefire signed this week, which brought home the last twenty surviving Israeli hostages after two years of brutal Hamas captivity, was not the product of cautious diplomacy but the culmination of months of coercive, transactional deal-making driven by Donald Trump.
Trump’s plan, developed through quiet coordination with Cairo, Doha and Abu Dhabi, demanded one thing above all else: results. His envoys offered reconstruction funds only after a total cessation of rocket fire and guaranteed that American oversight, not the United Nations process, would steer the transition.
That clarity – and the unmistakable threat of what would happen if it failed – persuaded both Israel and Hamas’s political wing to accept a phased deal they had rejected under previous administrations. Two key moments stand out.
The first was the Oval Office meeting between Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu, during which Israel confirmed several concessions, including the possible long-term establishment of a Palestinian transitional authority.
The second occurred shortly afterwards, when Israel managed to bring Doha back on board despite its bombing of Hamas targets in the Leqtaifiya district of Qatar’s capital on September 9.
Trump had started the ball rolling by offering Qatar a training facility at the Mountain Home Air Force Base in Idaho, along with access to specific U. military exports, particularly aircraft.
But it was Netanyahu’s decision to use Trump’s script during an apology call from the Oval Office to Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman bin Jassim Al-Thani that sealed the deal.
The call soothed Qatari anger and restored confidence that the ceasefire was real, not tactical theatre.
“This really gave Hamas’s political bureau confidence in Trump’s leverage and his ability to engage with Bibi in a way that would deliver major concessions,” said Megan Sutcliffe of Sibylline.
As former British ambassador Edmund Fitton-Brown put it, “This worked because Trump is Trump. His personality is the policy. He forces everyone to confront the deal in front of them – no ambiguity, no escape hatch. That’s what it took to move Gaza off dead centre.”
It was, in a sense, the opposite of consensus diplomacy.
Trump understood that Hamas’s leadership feared annihilation more than international condemnation, and that Israel’s war Cabinet needed a political guarantee it could defend at home.
He gave both: a face-saving exit for Hamas’s bedraggled survivors and a credible reconstruction framework under US–Arab supervision.
Egypt and Qatar accepted American conditions because they knew the United States would enforce them.
He showed that in his decision to order US naval assets to target the Houthis in Yemen, and again in the decisive way he directed US Air Force B-2 bombers to deal with Iran’s nuclear facilities.
But more than this, it is his unique ability to rein in or unleash Israeli forces that matters now.
Trump has proved he will back his word with action.
When he threatened to allow Israel to “finish the job” unless Hamas backed down, it was believed.
“For all his rough edges, Trump achieved what no one else could – he broke the loop of paralysis,” said Sutcliffe.
“He applied the one form of pressure everyone in the region still respects: consequence. Without that, this deal would never have reached the table.”
Trump’s mixture of impatience and precision created the only formula that could work: pressure, money and absolute control of sequencing.
No other approach could have secured the previously unimaginable agreement of every Arab capital because each understood that failure would carry consequences.
Where previous administrations mistook process for power, Trump used personality as policy.
He frightened the right people, reassured the necessary ones, and left no doubt about ownership.
Without that blend of menace and momentum, the ceasefire would still be a mere aspiration buried under debris.
History has yet to decide whether it lasts.
And there is real cause to believe that conflict will return to the Gaza Strip, as Hamas continues to mobilise armed militias to fill the vacuum left by retreating IDF forces and to stave off the advance of rival clans. These are not the actions of a movement willing to relinquish control – a key condition for securing Phase Two of the deal.
If conflict resumes, however, it is unlikely to involve direct IDF intervention, at least not in the short term. Rather, Israel will probably continue to support rival clans in what could become a civil war by proxy.
Gazans, in desperate need to see homes reconstructed, may finally stand up to Hamas and declare: Enough.
By the time that happens, Israel will have secured the return of the remaining deceased hostages.
It is little wonder that Tel Aviv is now awash with giant digital billboards declaring a single sentiment: “Thank you, Trump.”