A grandiose setting, warm embraces, and ominous warnings—but beneath the pageantry of the December 29 meeting between President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu lies a troubling reality: the carefully constructed architecture of Middle East ceasefires is crumbling, and the international community appears powerless to stop it.
The Theater of Diplomacy
When Benjamin Netanyahu arrived at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate on December 29, 2025, the optics were carefully choreographed for maximum political impact. Trump greeted the Israeli prime minister with visible warmth, even making the extraordinary—and immediately disputed—claim that Israeli President Isaac Herzog planned to pardon Netanyahu of corruption charges. Netanyahu reciprocated by announcing he would gift Trump the Israel Prize, an honor historically reserved exclusively for Israeli citizens.
Yet beneath this display of mutual admiration lay a series of intractable problems that the meeting not only failed to solve but arguably made more volatile. The summit exposed three fundamental crises: a Gaza ceasefire that exists only on paper, an escalating shadow conflict with Iran, and an American diplomatic approach that simultaneously promises peace while threatening war.
The Gaza Illusion: A Ceasefire in Name Only
The centerpiece of Trump’s Middle East legacy—the October ceasefire between Israel and Hamas after two years of devastating warfare—is rapidly deteriorating into a dangerous fiction. The numbers tell a stark story: despite the ceasefire officially being in effect, Israeli strikes have killed more than 400 Palestinians, most of them civilians according to Gaza health officials, while Palestinian militants have killed three Israeli soldiers. This isn’t the normal friction of a fragile peace; it’s ongoing warfare with a diplomatic label attached.
The Disarmament Impasse
At the heart of the crisis lies an irreconcilable demand: Israel insists Hamas must disarm before any political progress, while Hamas views surrendering its weapons as signing its own death warrant. Trump’s position at Mar-a-Lago was unequivocal, warning that Hamas would face “hell to pay” if it doesn’t lay down its arms—the same threat he’s issued “at previous intervals during the fighting,” suggesting more rhetoric than strategy.
But the arithmetic of disarmament defies simple solutions. Hamas emerged from two years of warfare weakened but not destroyed, and it’s now “reasserting its control” in areas where Israeli troops remain entrenched across half of Gaza. For Hamas, weapons represent not merely military capability but political legitimacy—proof that armed resistance, not diplomatic concession, forces Israeli withdrawals. Disarming would transform Hamas from a liberation movement into just another political faction competing for Palestinian Authority scraps, vulnerable to Israeli reoccupation and rival Palestinian factions.
From Israel’s perspective, allowing Hamas to retain weapons guarantees the cycle continues. Every rocket, every tunnel, every cache of explosives represents future Israeli casualties and the potential for renewed conflict. Netanyahu’s government, dependent on far-right coalition partners who view any Hamas survival as unacceptable, cannot politically afford to move forward without disarmament.
The proposed solution—international peacekeepers mandated by a November 17 UN Security Council resolution—exists in diplomatic limbo. Hamas hasn’t agreed to their presence, Israel doubts their effectiveness, and Trump’s push for Turkish peacekeepers introduces additional complications given the “fraught” relationship between Ankara and Jerusalem.
The Hostage Remains Dilemma
Netanyahu brought the family of Ran Gvili, the last remaining Israeli hostage whose body is still held in Gaza, to Mar-a-Lago. The symbolism was deliberate: Netanyahu declared Israel would not open the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt—a key provision of Trump’s ceasefire plan—until Gvili’s remains are returned.
This single condition encapsulates the broader dysfunction. Hamas possesses leverage through withholding remains but deploying that leverage appears ghoulish and hardens Israeli public opinion against any concessions. Meanwhile, Israel’s refusal to open Rafah restricts humanitarian aid flows into Gaza, where the civilian population has endured two years of warfare and faces winter without adequate shelter, food, or medical supplies.
One family’s tragedy has become a bottleneck for an entire peace process, and neither side can afford to be seen yielding first.
The Humanitarian Crisis Ignored
Notably absent from Trump’s public remarks was any substantial discussion of Gaza’s humanitarian catastrophe. Two years of high-intensity urban warfare have left the territory’s infrastructure in ruins. Hospitals lack equipment and medicine, water systems are compromised, and an estimated 1.9 million people—nearly Gaza’s entire population—have been displaced at some point during the conflict.
The first phase of the ceasefire included provisions for increased aid, yet the situation remains dire. With Israeli forces occupying half the territory, Rafah crossing closed, and fighting continuing despite the ceasefire, humanitarian organizations struggle to deliver basic necessities. The international community has pledged reconstruction funds, but rebuilding cannot begin while conflict persists and political status remains unresolved.
This humanitarian void creates multiple dangers. Desperate populations become recruiting grounds for extremism. Disease outbreaks in crowded, unsanitary conditions could spread beyond Gaza’s borders. And the sheer scale of suffering generates international pressure that neither Israel nor the United States can indefinitely ignore, even as Trump’s remarks suggested humanitarian concerns rank below security imperatives.
Iran: The Shadow War Goes Public
If Gaza represented the known crisis, Trump’s comments on Iran revealed a potentially more dangerous escalation brewing beneath diplomatic surfaces. His warnings were specific and menacing: the United States could support another major strike on Iran if intelligence suggests Tehran is rebuilding ballistic missile or nuclear weapons programs damaged in what Trump described as a “massive US strike in June.”
Reading the Signals
Trump’s reference to B-2 bombers—”It’s a 37-hour trip both ways. I don’t want to waste a lot of fuel”—mixed dark humor with unmistakable threat. The bomber detail wasn’t accidental; B-2s represent America’s premier deep-strike capability, able to deliver massive ordnance from bases in the United States to targets anywhere globally. Mentioning them signals that military planning has advanced beyond theoretical contingencies.
Yet Trump also noted he’s “broached a potential nuclear deal with Tehran in recent months,” suggesting simultaneous pressure and negotiation tracks. This dual-track approach—threatening military action while exploring diplomatic solutions—defines Trump’s approach to adversaries. The question is whether it represents sophisticated statecraft or policy incoherence.
Iran’s response has been defiant. The country conducted missile exercises twice in December, according to reports, a clear signal that it won’t be intimidated into compliance. Tehran fought a 12-day war with Israel in June, suggesting the “massive strike” Trump referenced may have been part of that conflict, and Iran’s military recovered sufficiently to demonstrate continued capability months later.
The Nuclear Clock
The underlying urgency centers on Iran’s nuclear program. Estimates of how close Iran is to weapons capability vary, with intelligence agencies disagreeing on timelines and intentions. But the strategic calculus is unforgiving: once Iran crosses certain thresholds—sufficient highly enriched uranium, weapons design completion, delivery system reliability—military options become less effective while Iran’s deterrent capability grows.
Trump’s mention that “we know exactly where they’re going, what they’re doing” suggests active intelligence monitoring, likely combining satellite surveillance, signals intelligence, and human sources. But intelligence about nuclear programs has historically proven unreliable—recall the 2003 Iraq War justifications—and even accurate intelligence can’t predict political decisions about weaponization.
Regional Implications of a Strike
A second major US or Israeli strike on Iranian facilities would trigger consequences far beyond the immediate targets:
Economic Shockwaves: Iran could retaliate against Gulf oil infrastructure or threaten the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 21% of global petroleum passes. Oil prices could spike to $150-200 per barrel, devastating global economic recovery and hitting American consumers with soaring gasoline prices.
Proxy Network Activation: Iran maintains relationships with militia groups across Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon. Hezbollah alone possesses an estimated 130,000-150,000 rockets and missiles, far more than Hamas ever had. A coordinated response could overwhelm Israeli air defenses and draw the region into broader warfare.
Chinese and Russian Positions: Both powers have significant economic interests in Iran and could provide diplomatic cover, military equipment, or economic lifelines that blunt American pressure. This transforms a regional conflict into a great power competition arena.
Domestic Iranian Politics: Strikes could rally the Iranian population around the regime, undermining internal reform movements and validating hardliners’ arguments that the West only understands force.
Trump’s comments suggested confidence in American intelligence and military capability, but the history of Middle East interventions counsels humility. The 2003 Iraq invasion, the 2011 Libya intervention, decades of Afghanistan operations—all began with confident predictions and ended with outcomes far more complex and costly than anticipated.
The Netanyahu Factor: Politics, Prosecutions, and Policy
Netanyahu’s presence at Mar-a-Lago cannot be separated from his domestic political vulnerabilities. The Israeli prime minister faces ongoing corruption charges, and his governing coalition depends on far-right parties that oppose Palestinian statehood and demand permanent Israeli security control over all territories.
Coalition Constraints
Netanyahu’s political survival requires satisfying coalition partners who view the Gaza ceasefire as a dangerous concession rather than a diplomatic achievement. Ministers like Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir have threatened to collapse the government if Netanyahu makes concessions they view as existential threats to Israel. This means Netanyahu may structurally lack the political capacity to implement the ceasefire’s second phase, regardless of his personal assessment of its merits.
Trump’s bizarre comment about Herzog planning to pardon Netanyahu—immediately denied by the Israeli president’s office—revealed the elephant in the room. Netanyahu’s legal troubles color every decision, raising questions about whether policy choices serve national interests or personal political survival. Leaders facing prosecution have historically shown willingness to choose conflict over compromise when warfare provides political cover and patriotic legitimacy.
The West Bank Silent Crisis
Trump mentioned that he and Netanyahu “did not agree fully on the issue of the Israeli-occupied West Bank” but declined to elaborate. This cryptic reference may represent the meeting’s most significant revelation. While Gaza dominates headlines, the West Bank—home to roughly 3 million Palestinians and 450,000 Israeli settlers—represents the unspoken crisis.
Settler violence against Palestinians has increased, according to UN monitoring. Israeli military operations in West Bank cities continue despite reduced international attention. And the expansion of settlements—considered illegal under international law though Israel disputes this—proceeds steadily. If Netanyahu’s government accelerates West Bank settlement construction or conducts operations that spark broader Palestinian resistance, it could open a second front that makes Gaza’s challenges appear manageable by comparison.
Trump’s reluctance to specify the disagreement suggests it may be fundamental. If Trump envisions eventual Palestinian statehood requiring West Bank territorial compromise, and Netanyahu’s coalition categorically rejects this, then the entire peace architecture rests on an unacknowledged fault line.
American Foreign Policy: Peacemaker or Arsonist?
The Mar-a-Lago meeting crystallized a fundamental contradiction in Trump’s Middle East approach: he claims credit for brokering peace while simultaneously threatening actions that could ignite regional war.
The Credibility Problem
Trump took credit for three ceasefires: Israel-Hamas, Israel-Iran, and Israel-Lebanon. Yet his threats against Iran and Hamas suggest willingness to abandon these agreements if they don’t produce desired outcomes quickly. This creates credibility challenges on multiple levels.
For Allies: If American support proves contingent on immediate results rather than sustained commitment to difficult processes, allies will seek alternative security arrangements. The Abraham Accords normalized Israel-Arab relations, but regional powers increasingly conduct diplomacy without American mediation—witness Saudi-Iranian rapprochement brokered by China.
For Adversaries: If American threats prove rhetorical rather than actionable, adversaries learn to ignore them. But if threats do materialize, it validates adversary arguments that the United States cannot be negotiated with, only resisted. Either way, American diplomatic leverage erodes.
For International Law: By backing Israel despite ongoing ceasefire violations and suggesting support for strikes on Iran, the United States signals that international law applies selectively. This undermines American moral authority and makes it harder to build coalitions for addressing challenges elsewhere.
The Aides’ Doubts
Buried in the article was a telling detail: “some aides have privately questioned the Israeli leader’s commitment to the Gaza ceasefire.” If Trump’s own advisors doubt Netanyahu’s intentions, it raises profound questions about the meeting’s purpose. Was it genuine policy coordination or political theater designed for domestic audiences?
This internal skepticism suggests policy divisions within the administration. Some officials may favor sustained pressure on Israel to implement ceasefire terms, while others prioritize the bilateral relationship regardless of Israeli actions. These divisions create policy incoherence that sophisticated actors like Netanyahu can exploit, playing different factions against each other.
Syria: The Forgotten Crisis
Before the meeting, Trump told reporters he would discuss stationing Turkish peacekeepers in Gaza, a diplomatically fraught proposal. But the Syria dimension received less attention despite potentially equal significance.
Israel has been “suspicious of the new leader” Ahmed al-Sharaa, who took power after Bashar al-Assad’s 2024 overthrow. Al-Sharaa’s background as a former Al-Qaeda member alarms Israeli security services, leading to Israeli bombing of government buildings in Damascus in July. Netanyahu said Israel was “keen to ensure a peaceful border with Syria,” while Trump expressed confidence Israel would “get along” with al-Sharaa.
This optimism appears detached from reality. Syria’s transition remains chaotic, with various factions controlling different territories, foreign powers maintaining military presences, and the risk of failed state dynamics creating space for extremist groups. If Iran establishes new proxy forces in Syria or if the country fractures further, Israel could face a third military challenge beyond Gaza and potential Iran conflict.
The casual dismissal of Syria’s complexity suggests strategic blindness. The 2011 Syrian uprising that triggered civil war began as peaceful protests; fourteen years and half a million deaths later, the conflict still lacks resolution. Assuming a smooth, peaceful transition under a former jihadist leader ignores historical patterns and regional dynamics.
The Turkish Wild Card
Turkey’s potential role in Gaza introduces another layer of complexity that Trump’s comments barely acknowledged. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has positioned Turkey as a champion of Palestinian rights, sharply criticizing Israeli operations. Turkish-Israeli relations remain tense despite both being NATO allies and maintaining economic ties.
Deploying Turkish peacekeepers to Gaza would create unprecedented scenarios:
If Turkish forces clash with Hamas: Erdogan faces domestic criticism for fighting Palestinians, undermining his pro-Palestinian credentials.
If Turkish forces clash with Israeli forces: A NATO ally conflict with Israel would create legal, diplomatic, and security nightmares, potentially fracturing the alliance.
If Turkish forces fail to prevent violence: All parties would blame Turkey, undermining its regional standing.
Trump’s praise for Erdogan—”frequently praised” according to the article—suggests personal relationship trumping strategic analysis. But personal bonds between leaders prove fragile when national interests diverge, and Gaza’s volatility would test any peacekeeping force’s capabilities.
Impact Assessment: Five Critical Domains
1. Regional Security Architecture
Immediate Impact: The meeting reinforced the status quo of American backing for Israeli security priorities while threatening regional actors who challenge this framework. In the short term, this may deter some challenges but encourages others who view American-Israeli coordination as the primary obstacle to their interests.
Medium-Term Trajectory: If the Gaza ceasefire collapses or Iran conflict escalates, the regional security system faces stress testing. Alliances will clarify—states will either align more closely with the American-Israeli axis or seek alternative arrangements with China, Russia, or regional powers like Saudi Arabia and UAE. The Abraham Accords could strengthen if Arab states view Israel as essential for countering Iran, or fracture if they face domestic pressure over Palestinian issues.
Long-Term Consequences: The meeting may be remembered as a turning point where the post-Cold War American security umbrella proved insufficient for regional stability. As American attention remains divided between Europe (Ukraine), Asia (China), and domestic concerns, Middle East actors increasingly manage their own security arrangements. This creates opportunity for creative regional diplomacy but also risk of miscalculation without great power mediation.
2. Humanitarian Catastrophe
Gaza’s Civilian Population: The failure to address humanitarian conditions at Mar-a-Lago signals that civilian suffering ranks below security concerns in policy prioritization. With winter conditions, restricted aid access, and ongoing violence, Gaza faces a potential humanitarian catastrophe that international organizations warn about but cannot prevent without political will.
Refugee Pressures: If conditions deteriorate further, pressure for refugee resettlement or temporary protection in neighboring countries grows. Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon—all facing their own economic and political challenges—resist absorbing Palestinian refugees, both for practical reasons and because they view it as complicity in Palestinian dispossession. This creates a humanitarian trap where suffering populations cannot access safety.
Generational Impact: Children growing up in Gaza have known only conflict, displacement, and trauma. The psychological, educational, and developmental impacts will shape Palestinian society for decades. Research on conflict-affected populations shows increased risks of mental health issues, interrupted education, normalized violence, and cycles of radicalization. The meeting’s failure to prioritize humanitarian concerns stores up problems for future generations.
3. Nuclear Proliferation
Iranian Program: Trump’s threats may accelerate Iranian nuclear development rather than deter it. If Tehran concludes that Washington will strike regardless of Iranian actions, the rational response is to achieve nuclear capability as quickly as possible for deterrent value. The meeting may have pushed Iran’s calculus toward weaponization.
Regional Cascade: Saudi Arabia has indicated it would pursue nuclear weapons if Iran obtains them. The UAE has advanced civilian nuclear capability that could be repurposed. Egypt, Turkey, and others have expressed nuclear interest. The Middle East could shift from one suspected nuclear power (Israel) to multiple nuclear-armed states within a decade if current trajectories continue.
Non-Proliferation Regime: American threats to strike Iranian facilities undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty’s credibility. If military force rather than diplomacy becomes the primary tool for preventing proliferation, it validates nuclear programs worldwide as necessary deterrents. The meeting’s implications extend far beyond Iran to global nonproliferation efforts.
4. Economic Disruption
Energy Markets: The specter of Iran conflict immediately affects oil markets. Even without actual strikes, uncertainty drives price volatility. If conflict erupts, sustained oil price spikes would stress global economies still recovering from previous disruptions, drive inflation, and potentially trigger recession in import-dependent economies.
Regional Trade: The Middle East serves as a crucial trade corridor between Asia, Europe, and Africa. Conflict disrupts shipping routes, raises insurance costs, and forces companies to seek alternative logistics. The economic costs extend beyond direct combatants to the global trading system.
Reconstruction vs. Destruction: Billions in pledged Gaza reconstruction funds cannot be deployed while fighting continues and political status remains unresolved. The meeting’s failure to advance political solutions means economic recovery remains hypothetical, prolonging humanitarian suffering and economic stagnation.
5. Democratic Governance and International Law
Precedent Setting: Trump’s unconditional support for Netanyahu despite ongoing ceasefire violations and the latter’s legal troubles sends troubling signals about democratic accountability. If leaders facing corruption charges can count on superpower backing, it undermines rule of law and encourages authoritarianism globally.
International Law Erosion: The meeting implicitly endorsed Israel’s ongoing operations in Gaza despite ceasefire terms, suggested support for strikes on Iran without UN authorization, and dismissed humanitarian law concerns. This selective application of international law—binding for adversaries, optional for allies—destroys the rules-based order the United States ostensibly champions.
Democratic Peace Theory: The traditional foreign policy assumption that democracies resolve disputes peacefully requires democracies to function properly. When democratic leaders face criminal charges, govern through coalition deals that paralyze compromise, and prioritize political survival over policy substance, the democratic peace theory fails. The meeting exposed how democratic dysfunction can be as destabilizing as authoritarianism.
What Was Not Said: The Missing Elements
Some of the meeting’s most significant aspects emerged from what went unaddressed:
Palestinian Voice: No Palestinian representatives participated or provided input. The Palestinians—whose future was being discussed—remained objects rather than subjects of diplomacy, continuing a pattern that guarantees any agreement lacks legitimacy with the population that must live under it.
Saudi Arabia: The kingdom that once seemed central to Middle East peacemaking through potential Israel normalization was barely mentioned. If Saudi Arabia has stepped back from active mediation, it represents a significant shift in regional dynamics.
China and Russia: Neither great power competitor warranted discussion despite their growing Middle East involvement. This absence suggests continued American assumption of regional primacy that may no longer reflect reality.
Climate and Water: The underlying resource stresses that exacerbate conflict—water scarcity, agricultural disruption, climate change—went unmentioned. These drivers guarantee conflict continuation regardless of political settlements if not addressed.
Two-State Solution: The phrase that defined Middle East peace efforts for three decades went unspoken. Its absence may indicate quiet abandonment of the framework that international consensus supported, replaced by unstated alternatives that no party can publicly embrace.
Historical Context: Patterns of Failure
The Mar-a-Lago meeting fits uncomfortable historical patterns of Middle East peace efforts:
Camp David 2000: Bill Clinton brought Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to Camp David for intensive negotiations. The summit failed, followed by the Second Intifada that killed thousands.
Annapolis 2007: George W. Bush hosted Israeli and Palestinian leaders for peace talks. Progress stalled, and the 2008-2009 Gaza War erupted the following year.
Kerry Initiative 2013-2014: Secretary of State John Kerry invested enormous effort in peace negotiations. They collapsed, followed by the 2014 Gaza War.
The pattern repeats: high-profile summits generate optimistic headlines, leaders exchange pleasant rhetoric, fundamental issues remain unresolved, and violence eventually returns. Each failure makes the next attempt harder by reinforcing cynicism and empowering hardliners who argue that the other side negotiates in bad faith.
What makes the current situation potentially more dangerous is the accumulation of failed peace efforts. Palestinian society has lived through multiple “peace processes” that delivered neither peace nor statehood. Israeli society has concluded that territorial withdrawal (Gaza 2005, South Lebanon 2000) produces security threats rather than peace. These accumulated experiences create narrative frameworks that resist new attempts at compromise.
The Next Chapter: Three Months to Crisis
Based on the meeting’s dynamics and regional trends, several near-term inflection points emerge:
January-February 2025: If Hamas doesn’t demonstrate progress toward disarmament or if specific violent incidents occur, Netanyahu faces coalition pressure to resume military operations. The winter period traditionally sees reduced military activity due to weather, but political calendars don’t respect seasonal norms.
March-April 2025: Iranian nuclear program developments may force decision points. If intelligence indicates weapons-grade enrichment or weapons design completion, the window for preventive strikes narrows. Trump’s March-April period may prove decisive for Iran policy.
May-June 2025: International peacekeeping deployment deadlines approach. If the UN-mandated force hasn’t materialized by mid-year, it effectively signals mission failure. This could trigger Israeli unilateral action or regional states stepping back from mediation efforts they view as futile.
The meeting’s failure to establish concrete timelines, enforcement mechanisms, or accountability frameworks guarantees drift toward these crisis points without structures to manage them.
Conclusion: The Diplomacy of Decay
The Mar-a-Lago meeting between Trump and Netanyahu will likely be remembered not for what it achieved but for what it revealed: the profound inadequacy of current diplomatic frameworks for addressing Middle East conflicts.
Trump’s approach—personal relationships, transactional deals, and military threats—has produced ceasefires that don’t cease fires, agreements that aren’t implemented, and diplomatic architecture without foundations. Netanyahu’s constraints—legal troubles, coalition politics, and security imperatives—make him simultaneously the essential partner for peace and potentially incapable of delivering it. And the broader international community—Europe, Arab states, Russia, China—either lacks influence or chooses not to deploy it.
Three fundamental questions emerged unanswered from the Florida sunshine:
Can Hamas be disarmed without being destroyed? No credible pathway exists for Hamas to voluntarily surrender weapons that represent both military capability and political legitimacy, yet Israel cannot accept armed Hamas presence. This circle appears unsquareable.
Can Iran be contained without catastrophic war? American military threats may deter Iranian nuclear advancement or provoke it, but the uncertainty itself destabilizes the region. The shadow conflict threatens to burst into open warfare without any side clearly wanting that outcome.
Can personal diplomacy substitute for institutional frameworks? Trump’s reliance on direct relationships with Netanyahu, Erdogan, and other leaders creates policy vulnerability to personal dynamics, political changes, and the inevitable transitions that democratic systems produce.
The meeting’s warm optics masked cold realities: ceasefires exist on paper while violence continues, diplomatic processes advance nowhere, and the region drifts toward escalation without clear paths toward de-escalation. American influence proves sufficient to broker temporary arrangements but insufficient to enforce lasting settlements. Israeli military superiority guarantees tactical victories but cannot produce strategic resolution. Palestinian agency remains constrained by internal divisions and external pressures. And regional powers hedge their bets, preparing for various outcomes rather than betting on any single diplomatic track.
In the weeks following Mar-a-Lago, watch not the statements but the actions: Does violence in Gaza continue at current levels or escalate? Do Israeli troops begin withdrawing or entrenching? Does Iran conduct additional missile exercises or show restraint? Do international peacekeepers deploy or disappear from discussion?
The answers to these questions will reveal whether the meeting represented a genuine attempt at regional stabilization or merely another performance in the long-running theater of Middle East diplomacy—where the scripts are familiar, the actors well-rehearsed, and the tragedy continues regardless of who holds center stage.
What emerges most clearly from the Mar-a-Lago summit is this uncomfortable truth: the Middle East’s conflicts have metastasized beyond any single actor’s ability to resolve them. They require sustained multilateral effort, genuine compromise from all parties, and time horizons measured in decades rather than news cycles. Trump and Netanyahu’s meeting offered none of these. Instead, it provided a snapshot of regional dysfunction, great power hubris, and the growing gap between diplomatic rhetoric and ground reality.
The next crisis won’t ask permission to wait for better circumstances. When it arrives—and the question is when, not if—the Mar-a-Lago meeting will stand as evidence that the warning signs were visible, the dangers foreseeable, and the diplomatic tools inadequate. Future historians may view December 29, 2025, as the moment when Middle East peace processes definitively failed, and regional powers began preparing for a very different kind of future.