Overlooking Those Who Could End the War

We are at a critical juncture—one that could determine whether the Trump administration continues recent gestures that point toward pragmatic arrangements in the Middle East, or veers sharply back toward dangerous fantasies: re-occupying Gaza, expelling its population, and building a “Riviera” on its ruins—visions that will end not in peace, but in bloodshed.

This moment is a call to action for peace and human rights organizations: it demands a massive influence campaign to steer the ship in the right direction. Yet we are not equipped with the right tools. We must urgently develop new strategies and networks of influence—even indirect ones through proxies—to gain real traction.

To end the war in Gaza—or at the very least, to alleviate the suffering of its people—progressive organizations tend to rely on a familiar set of players. They appeal to international institutions like the UN or the International Criminal Court; sometimes to governments such as the EU, the UK, or—until Trump’s return—also the Biden administration. Far less often do they try to engage the Trump administration. They also focus heavily on mobilizing progressive youth in the streets and occasionally target corporations to apply economic pressure.

But there are actors today with far greater potential to influence the situation in Gaza—and even some chance they could be persuaded to lean toward our positions. Yet almost no effort is being made to reach them: those with sway over the Trump administration.

Yes, we must not be naïve. The Trump administration’s recent comments and gestures—appearing to distance itself from Netanyahu and gesture toward some kind of settlement—do not necessarily indicate a consistent shift. This is an unpredictable administration, and there are troubling signs that it might permit Israel to return to even more intense warfare than we’ve seen so far.

At the same time, other signals suggest opportunity: Trump’s aversion to endless, costly wars; his desire to avoid American entanglement in regional conflict; his personal interest in prestige and “deals” in the Middle East; and the potential for Gulf-state investment and regional stabilization. Trump is not “on our side,” and he is anything but predictable—but there is room to work with. And again, this is a pivotal moment that should accelerate action.

It’s difficult to outline an exact roadmap in a short analysis. But it’s clear that outreach is possible—even through proxies—to segments of the MEGA base and major Trump-aligned donors who are not hardline hawks. They can be persuaded that a path toward peace is better:

• Economically – Gulf-state investments, avoiding costly U.S. entanglement, stabilizing the region
• In terms of security – This is not “anti-Israel,” even if it opposes Netanyahu’s narrow agenda
• And morally and politically – The war’s atrocities are fueling antisemitism globally; peace would undercut those currents

There may also be opportunities for dialogue with certain Gulf actors, especially around supporting civil initiatives, media efforts, and campaigns that empower actors in Trump’s sphere of influence who favor diplomatic arrangements.

When engaging the Western right and political center, it may also be effective to raise the issue of refugee flows: instability in the Middle East often leads to displacement toward the West. This point must be made carefully, avoiding xenophobic tropes—but it is entirely reasonable for countries to seek to avoid another humanitarian catastrophe that would push large numbers of refugees toward their borders.

Furthermore, the anti-war sentiment within parts of the European right may influence Trump indirectly, through shared ideological, political, and social ties.

Finally, the Trump administration is drawn to bold, tangible shifts that appear actionable. That means practical, credible proposals for improving the situation in Gaza and the region—ones that seem more achievable than the current deadlock—can resonate. We need to invest in these, and in the relationships that make them viable.

We must learn to speak Trump’s political language and play his game—because countless lives depend on it. And that matters more than ideological purity.

All of this lies far outside the operating system of most progressive organizations. These strategies have little to do with international law, or with post-colonial frameworks or moral appeals. They are not about power analysis or structural critique. The path to Trump’s inner circle runs through arguments about interest, stability, and prosperity.

But that’s the game we need to play now, if we want to redirect a volatile ship away from an ocean of blood and toward the possibility of peace, liberty, and shared prosperity.