Trump’s Success Requires a Confrontation with Bibi

If Donald Trump wants to secure his place in the pantheon of transformative American presidents – and have a shot at his long-held hope for a Nobel Peace Prize – he will have to do something that only a few believe he has the backbone to do, and that is to stand up to Benjamin Netanyahu.

For decades, both Democrat and Republican US presidents have reshaped the Middle East not by indulging the leaders of Israel and its neighboring states, but by confronting them when necessary in order to advance broader American and Israeli interests. From Kissinger and Carter to Bush and Obama, history has shown that true breakthroughs only came about when Washington applied pressure rather than engaged in platitudes.

Now, with a chance to secure a regional realignment and an end to the war in Gaza – or set the stage for mass displacement and endless conflict – Trump must decide whether he is up to the task.

It was Henry Kissinger, Secretary of State in President Nixon’s Republican administration, who, before the Yom Kippur War, successfully moved Egypt from the Soviet camp to the American one and mediated the disengagement agreements after that traumatic war. The changes Kissinger led created the conditions that allowed Egyptian President Sadat, with the support of Democratic President Jimmy Carter, to move towards a peace agreement with Israel. This happened despite a right-wing

The Menachem Begin government had just come to power in Israel with promises of “no concessions.”

But under US pressure, that same government gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula for peace and became the first government to evacuate settlements. Following the agreement, Israel and Egypt became the largest recipients of foreign military aid from the US.

It was Republican President Ronald Reagan, considered a symbol of conservatism, who was the first to open an official dialogue with the Palestinian Liberation Organization      in 1988 after the PLO accepted UN Security Council Resolution 242 – which meant accepting Israel within the 1967 borders. The Shamir government saw it as an act of treason.

It was James Baker, Secretary of State in the Republican administration of George H.W. Bush, who later seized the moment of Soviet disintegration after the end of the Cold War. Known as the “unipolar moment,” this was the brief period when the United States was the sole global superpower, without a significant strategic rival.

Baker leveraged the success of the Arab coalition he created against the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait in the first Gulf War to convene the Madrid Conference. He forced Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, who had previously refused to negotiate, to approve Israel’s participation in the conference. This ultimately led to the first negotiations with a Palestinian delegation in Madrid as part of the Jordanian delegation, but ultimately with the PLO itself in the Oslo process that followed.

It was the then Democratic President Bill Clinton who helped facilitate the mutual recognition between Israel and the PLO in the Oslo Accords that led to the peace agreement with Jordan.

Later, it was Republican George W. Bush who became the first American president to publicly and explicitly declare support for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel as part of a solution to the conflict. He sent his Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, to our region several times, but she unsuccessfully attempted to translate the vision into reality.

After him, it was John Kerry, the Democratic Secretary of State under President Obama, who tried to promote this vision but in practice allowed Netanyahu to mislead him and play for time. While Netanyahu publicly declared tepid support for a two-state solution, in practice he actively sabotaged the process, and Obama’s officials later expressed regret that they did not press harder. In the Iranian context, however, Obama did manage to advance an agreement between the major powers and Iran, which improved security for Israel, despite Netanyahu’s vocal opposition.

President Joe Biden, a Democrat, entered the White House after Trump led the signing of the Abraham Accords during his first term. Biden understood the potential of the agreements but also realized their inherent  flaw –  that they did not include the Palestinians.

He tried to leverage the normalization precedent with the UAE and Bahrain to open a channel to Saudi Arabia, hoping to create a regional alliance against Iran, its proxies, and Sunni jihadism, and to offer Israel a political horizon with the Palestinians that would serve as an alternative to Hamas. This process was built slowly but resolutely, with frequent visits by Secretary of State Antony Blinken, and also included an attempt at reform within the Palestinian Authority. These efforts were thwarted again by Netanyahu and by a failure of resolute and clear-eyed leadership.

Now, President Trump has the opportunity to complete the move initiated by Biden on the shoulders of all presidents before him. He can leverage the momentum, Saudi support, and Israel’s need for stability and force the Netanyahu government into a comprehensive regional political settlement.

Ironically, Trump, who signed the Abraham Accords without involving the Palestinians, could be the one to realize the vision of a demilitarized Palestinian state. But he can do so only if he awakens to the reality that Netanyahu is feeding him nonsense about absolute victory in Gaza and is prolonging the war to stay in power. A large majority of the Israeli public would support such a move if it included the release of the hostages, ensured Israel’s security, and prevented Hamas from attaining any ability to return to power.

Trump could also be the one to sign an improved agreement with Iran, after withdrawing from the initial agreement out of spite for Obama. In doing so, Trump facilitated Iran becoming a threshold nuclear state. And yet a strong new agreement could make up for the strategic mistake of abandoning the previous one.

If Trump wants to go down in history as a statesman and a dealmaker who changed the face of the Middle East, he must understand that forcing Netanyahu to move toward a two-state solution and reaching an agreement with Iran is in both Israeli and American interests, but he must act decisively to achieve this aim.

Trump possesses significant influence on the Israeli right and is in a unique position to effectively exerty pressure on the current Israeli leadership. But ironically, if he truly wants that Nobel Prize, he will need to forcefully wield that pressure on the man who rejoiced perhaps more than any other at his presidential victory – Benjamin Netanyahu.