Steve Witkoff: The Envoy Who Mistook Diplomacy for a Real Estate Deal

With the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska taking place today, the stakes for American diplomacy could not be higher. This meeting, set against a backdrop of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza and rising global instability, will test Washington’s credibility with both allies and adversaries. At the center of this volatile moment stands Steve Witkoff, a man whose path from Manhattan real estate mogul to US Special Envoy is not a story of talent or expertise. It is a cautionary tale of cronyism, hubris, and the dangerous consequences of elevating loyalty over competence. His appointment, rooted more in personal friendship with Donald Trump than in any diplomatic credentials, has already undermined trust with allies, emboldened adversaries, and damaged US national security. While Witkoff’s notable achievements in real estate are not in dispute, they do not equip him to navigate some of the most sensitive and dangerous diplomatic negotiations in recent memory.

From Gaza to Ukraine, Witkoff has approached diplomacy as though it were a property deal, bulldozing through protocol, reducing intricate conflicts to transactional haggling, and relying on gut instincts rather than strategic planning. His role in the Gaza ceasefire and hostage negotiations was defined by a complex mix of personal relationships, political loyalties, and a tendency to overvalue informal rapport. At times, he projected genuine empathy toward the families of hostages, positioning himself as a compassionate advocate for their plight. Yet his overall approach remained closely aligned with Israeli government positions, particularly those of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

A central element of Witkoff’s strategy was his direct access to Qatar’s leadership. Qatar continues to play a pivotal and nuanced role as a mediator in Gaza, thanks to its strategic positioning and media and military infrastructure. Earlier this month, Witkoff met with Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Mohammed in Ibiza to push a comprehensive ceasefire and hostage-release framework, one aimed at staving off an imminent Israeli offensive on Gaza City. Yet despite Doha’s diplomatic cachet and goodwill, negotiations in Qatar collapsed, with Washington and Jerusalem accusing Hamas of negotiating in bad faith. Ceasefire talks dissolved after proposals, including a 60-day truce, hostage exchanges, and a humanitarian corridor, failed to gain traction.

Meanwhile, Gaza’s humanitarian crisis has reached dire levels: starvation, mass casualties, and widespread global condemnation now define the picture despite escalating international mediation efforts. Qatar’s emergence as a diplomatic crossroads, combining military bases, media influence, and agile crisis diplomacy, continues to garner attention. Still, its financial reach and relationships with US decision-makers have sparked critical scrutiny.

Witkoff’s bungled diplomacy with Qatar cannot be seen in isolation. The Gulf state has long walked a fine line between hosting a significant US military base and maintaining ties with Hamas, a relationship that both Israel and its allies view with suspicion. Netanyahu’s government has pursued a dual strategy: publicly resisting any diplomatic arrangement that would grant Doha a leading role in negotiations, fearing it might politically and militarily empower Hamas, while simultaneously relying on Doha as an intermediary with Hamas.

For Witkoff, this was the diplomatic equivalent of playing a game of chess while refusing to touch half the pieces on the board. His inability—or unwillingness—to reconcile Israeli demands with Qatari influence didn’t just stall negotiations; it sent a signal to regional actors that Washington’s special envoy was constrained by political loyalties rather than strategic necessity. The stakes of Witkoff’s diplomatic fumbling extend far beyond his credibility. Any shift in the hostage negotiations could reverberate through Israel’s fragile political landscape, where Netanyahu’s coalition, already strained by public anger over the war and the failure to bring hostages home, faces the risk of collapse if concessions to Qatar or Hamas are perceived as too generous. This volatile mix of domestic pressure and geopolitical maneuvering makes Washington’s choice of envoy all the more consequential. Yet Witkoff’s lack of diplomatic skill, combined with the administration’s willingness to indulge Netanyahu’s hardline instincts, has left the US with less influence precisely when it is most needed.

Even with his Qatari ties, Witkoff’s outreach to other critical regional players, such as Egypt, was insufficient. Egypt has historically been central to mediating Gaza ceasefires and facilitating talks between Israel and Palestinian factions. Without Cairo’s active participation, the prospects for building a broad, sustainable coalition diminished significantly.

To his credit, Witkoff did achieve some tangible outcomes. His back-channel relationship with Qatar played a role in securing the January 2025 ceasefire and in facilitating the release of dozens of hostages from Gaza. This outcome brought relief to families on both sides. In an environment where many diplomatic efforts collapse before they even reach the table, this was no small accomplishment. Even his critics acknowledge that his persistence and personal rapport opened doors that might otherwise have remained shut.

Yet these victories were fleeting. Without a broader, inclusive framework, the underlying tensions quickly reignited, and the ceasefire collapsed almost as swiftly as it was announced. The speed of this breakdown underscored the fragility of arrangements built on personal connections rather than durable, multilateral agreements. Once hostilities resumed, regional partners began questioning Washington’s capacity to act as an impartial and effective broker, one capable of balancing the intricate web of competing regional interests.

In the end, Witkoff’s Gaza diplomacy blended personal empathy with political loyalty but was ultimately hindered by his unwillingness to challenge Israeli policy or to foster inclusive regional cooperation. His unique access to Qatar did not translate into meaningful breakthroughs. Instead, it left him walking a precarious tightrope that limited his ability to advance a comprehensive, balanced peace process, eroding US credibility and leaving the door open for further conflict.

If Gaza highlighted Witkoff’s reluctance to push beyond comfortable relationships, Ukraine exposed the dangers of overconfidence and poor preparation on the world stage. Early in his tenure, he publicly downplayed the seriousness of Russia’s annexations, referring to Vladimir Putin as a “great guy” and signaling an intent to treat Kremlin-backed referenda in occupied territories as legitimate. This posture sent a deeply demoralizing signal to Kyiv and NATO allies, undermining the unified stance essential for confronting Moscow’s aggression.

During sensitive negotiations, Witkoff also failed to secure agreements on humanitarian corridors for civilian evacuations in contested cities. Ukrainian officials privately expressed frustration that his proposals seemed disconnected from battlefield realities and lacked enforceable guarantees. While he did achieve some early successes, such as helping arrange the safe evacuation of several humanitarian aid convoys from conflict zones, these gains were narrow in scope and short-lived. Engaging in high-risk diplomatic environments impressed some observers, and in a few isolated cases, his informal style helped break communication deadlocks. Yet these moments of progress were overshadowed by a series of costly strategic missteps.

The most damaging of these came during ceasefire talks, as reported by the German newspaper Bild. When Putin demanded that Ukrainian forces withdraw from Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, Witkoff inexplicably interpreted this as Russia offering to withdraw its troops. German and Ukrainian officials were blunt in their assessment: “Witkoff doesn’t know what he’s talking about.” This was not a simple slip of the tongue—it was a catastrophic misreading of the terms that sowed confusion in European capitals, handed Putin a propaganda victory, and weakened Ukraine’s already fragile negotiating position.

Insiders have been equally unkind. A former Trump official described Witkoff as “a nice guy, but a bumbling idiot,” warning that he should never negotiate alone. Nonetheless, Witkoff often attended high-stakes meetings solo, relying on Kremlin translators—a breach of basic diplomatic protocol that alarmed Ukrainian interpreters and unsettled allies. Former Ambassador Michael McFaul went so far as to call him “a mailman for Putin,” lamenting his lack of Russia-savvy advisers and branding his approach a “performative misfire.”

Public sentiment has echoed these criticisms. Writing in the New York Post, Seymour Srulowitz summed up the prevailing view: “He may be a superb real-estate negotiator, but dealing with murderous villains… is clearly beyond his pay grade.” It is a biting indictment, one that reflects growing disillusionment with entrusting national security to a figure whose business achievements have often been marred by controversy, and whose diplomatic blunders carry increasingly perilous consequences.

From mishandling Gaza ceasefire efforts to misunderstanding Putin’s demands in Ukraine, Witkoff’s record shows a consistent pattern of undermining US interests. By echoing Kremlin talking points, mishandling negotiations, and sidestepping the hard diplomatic work needed to secure durable agreements, he has weakened the credibility upon which America’s allies and adversaries alike depend to gauge US resolve.

His appointment is emblematic of a political culture that prizes personal loyalty over professional expertise, with far-reaching consequences. At a moment when the United States faces formidable global challenges, from Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine to the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza and escalating tensions across the Middle East, entrusting such challenges to someone whose competence is so often in doubt is more than unwise; it is reckless.

This failure also reflects a deeper structural flaw in American diplomacy: the persistent sidelining of Arab American voices in negotiations involving Israeli-Palestinian issues. Time and again, such roles have been entrusted primarily to Jewish Americans whose lived experiences and perspectives, while valuable, do not fully capture the complexity of the region or the perspectives of all communities directly affected. By excluding Arab American diplomats and negotiators, Washington narrows the conversation and undermines the prospects for inclusive, balanced, and lasting solutions.

Suppose the United States truly intends to play an even-handed role in the Middle East. In that case, it must diversify its diplomatic corps and elevate voices capable of building genuine trust across all parties. Without such change, it will continue to repeat old mistakes, appointing envoys who lack both the expertise and the cultural insight necessary to navigate the region’s intractable conflicts.

History will not remember Steve Witkoff as the envoy who brokered peace or stabilized regions. Instead, he will be remembered as the businessman who treated diplomacy like closing a deal in a New York deli over bagels and lox, casual, transactional, and heedless of the stakes. He misread the complexities, underestimated the challenges, and in doing so, helped keep the doors to peace firmly shut, inflicting lasting damage on U.S. credibility and national security.

Check out my new book – Op-Ed: Musings on War & Peace in the Middle East and Beyond.