İsmail Sarı
It appears that Trump will approach Gaza and Iran with a comprehensive strategy. His dual-pronged strategy, which aims to exert pressure on Iran while supporting Israel, can be understood from the perspective of alliance politics and strategic balancing. In this context, Trump’s clear declaration of his readiness to closely cooperate with Israel on Iran will allowfor a strategic balance between Washington and Tel Aviv and enable the management of bothissues in an interconnected manner.
It is undeniable that U.S. President Donald Trump has made a significant contribution to theceasefire process in Gaza. However, he still faces several major obstacles in achieving lastingpeace in the Middle East. In this context, the issues of Gaza and Iran come to the forefront. InGaza, there are differing approaches between Israel and Hamas regarding the release of theremaining hostages and the transition to the second phase of negotiations to secure a permanent ceasefire. At this point, strategic misalignments between the parties will have a critical impact on the sustainability of the ceasefire.
Meanwhile, the rapid advancement of Iran’s nuclear program is seen as another majorconcern for the United States. According to Rafael Grossi, Director-General of theInternational Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the Iranian leadership is adopting an aggressivestance in expanding its nuclear capacity. It appears that Trump will approach Gaza and Iran with a comprehensive strategy. His dual-pronged strategy, which aims to exert pressure on Iran while supporting Israel, can be understood from the perspective of alliance politics andstrategic balancing. In this regard, Trump’s clear commitment to close cooperation with Israelon Iran will enable a strategic balance between Washington and Tel Aviv and allow for theinterdependent management of both issues.
Trump’s Gaza Plan: A Strategic Deadlock
Peace processes in the Middle East have revolved around fundamental issues since the Oslo Accords of the 1990s. Matters such as borders, security, refugees, the status of Jerusalem, andmutual recognition have led to the failure of initiatives like Camp David (2000), theAnnapolis Process (2007–08), and the Kerry Negotiations (2013–14). The common threadamong these processes was the suspension of final status negotiations and a persistent lack of trust between the parties.
Trump’s Gaza plan, announced on Tuesday, January 4, is based on three main pillars: U.S. control over Gaza, the relocation of Palestinians, and the transformation of the region into a tourism- and trade-oriented model. However, these proposals present significant challengesunder international law. Forced displacement has been characterized as ethnic cleansing bythe United Nations (UN), while the U.S. intention to “take over” Gaza raises the risk of becoming an occupying power. Additionally, this plan contradicts Trump’s 2016 rhetoricagainst “nation-building” and has been viewed as a strategic inconsistency.
Since the Marshall Plan, the U.S. has not successfully implemented a project of this scale. Infact, most of its attempts have ended in failure, as evident in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya. Moreover, the question of how such a large-scale initiative would be financed remainsunclear. Given the enormous cost and the political sensitivities of the region, it is uncertainwhether the U.S. would bear the full burden alone or if international partners would be involved in the process.
Trump has not only advocated for the permanent displacement of more than two millionPalestinians in Gaza but has also stated that the U.S. plans to take control of Gaza and, ifnecessary, use American military power to secure the region. This proposal has been widelyregarded as a reckless idea and has been interpreted by most analysts as a reflection of Trump’s well-known risky and cynical approach.
Hamas has described the plan as “expulsion from the land,” while the Palestinian envoy to theUN emphasized that Gazans’ right to remain should be universally recognized. Saudi Arabiaindirectly rejected Trump’s plan by declaring that it would not normalize relations with Israelwithout the establishment of a Palestinian state. Internationally, experts have criticized theplan as “unrealistic” and “inconsistent with historical context.”
Such a plan would further undermine U.S. credibility in the region. While Trump’s proposalseeks to redefine the U.S. role in the Middle East, it faces significant challenges, including a lack of legal legitimacy, historical traumas, and the deterioration of regional alliances. Forceddisplacement and occupation violate the UN Charter, making a new wave of displacementunacceptable for Palestinians. Rather than a realistic peace strategy, Trump’s proposal is seenas political speculation that prioritizes Israel’s security concerns while disregarding humanrights and international norms.
If Trump’s goal is to pressure Hamas, it is unlikely that this initiative will succeed. Althoughhis statements alongside Netanyahu surprised many, some observers have linked them to his typically hardline negotiation approach. By starting the bargaining process from a maximalistposition, Trump may aim to conduct a phased negotiation on relations between Israel andGaza and secure advantages in his favor.
However, the key question here is whom Trump is trying to influence with theseextraordinary statements, which violate long-established U.S. policies in the Middle East, international law, and diplomatic conventions. Even Israeli settlers, who envision resettling in Gaza based on their religious and nationalist messianism, are unlikely to support this plan. Instead of allowing American contractors to build luxury hotels in the region, they wouldprefer to turn Gaza’s land into settlement areas once again.
It is also evident that Jordan and Egypt are not in a position to support the forced or voluntaryresettlement of more than two million Gazans within their borders. Even if these countrieswere to bow to Trump’s pressure, the U.S. aid they would receive would not be sufficient tooffset the geopolitical, economic, security, and social consequences of such a large-scalepopulation movement. On the other hand, it is clear that Trump is not attempting to pressureIsrael or Netanyahu’s leadership. In this context, it can be said that the primary target of Trump’s extraordinary statements is the Palestinians, particularly Hamas.
Trump’s Iran Strategy: A Crossroads
On Tuesday, February 4 (2025), Donald Trump signed a presidential memorandum reinstatingpreviously implemented tough policies against Iran to prevent it from acquiring nuclearweapons and to restrict its oil exports. In his statement, Trump asserted that Iran must neverpossess nuclear weapons and defended the U.S. right to block the sale of Iranian oil to othercountries.
However, in a statement on Wednesday, February 5, Trump expressed his desire for Iran tobecome a great and successful country—but without nuclear weapons. In a post on the TruthSocial platform, he claimed that reports suggesting the U.S. was working with Israel to “tearIran apart” were “greatly exaggerated.” Furthermore, he emphasized that a “Verified NuclearPeace Deal” allowing Iran to grow and develop peacefully would be a more appropriatesolution, expressing his intention to work toward such an agreement and to hold a grandMiddle East celebration upon its completion.
The year 2025 marks a critical period as it marks the tenth anniversary of the signing of thenuclear agreement known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). Thisagreement aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear activities, oversee its research and developmentprocesses, and restrict its ability to expand nuclear infrastructure. While the effectiveness of this approach has been debated, the ten-year duration of the agreement was intended to serveas a foundation for future negotiations and pave the way for a more comprehensive deal.
However, 2025 has unfolded in an unexpectedly different context. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the JCPOA in May 2018 prompted Iran to expandits nuclear activities. Iran restarted its centrifuge research and development programs, significantly increasing its nuclear capacity. While the Biden administration focused primarilyon restoring mutual compliance with the nuclear deal, Iran remained indifferent to theseefforts. As a result, Iran’s nuclear program has continued to advance, and the time required forproducing the materials needed for nuclear weapons has been significantly reduced. Today, it is estimated that Iran is only a few weeks away from producing the necessary materials fornuclear weapons.
Additionally, Iran’s regional proxy network remains another major concern. This network has been significantly weakened in recent times, with Israeli operations severely impacting thecapabilities of Hezbollah, Tehran’s key proxy in the region. Furthermore, the fall of the Assadregime in Syria has shifted the regional balance of power against Iran. While Iran has takensteps to regain its nuclear program and regional strategic depth, this process will be long andchallenging. The Trump administration has limited time to navigate this decisive turning pointin its relations with Iran. In this regard, it is only a matter of time before Iran’s nuclear issueonce again dominates the international agenda.
The Trump administration must acknowledge this new reality in which Iran has becomeregionally weakened yet possesses its most advanced nuclear capability. On the other hand, recent events have demonstrated to Israel that taking greater risks against Iran is feasible.
In this regard, Trump is likely to take bolder steps and demonstrate firm determination, employing all diplomatic, economic, and military means to prevent Iran from acquiringnuclear weapons and to hinder the rearmament of its regional proxy forces, particularlyHezbollah. In contrast, the Biden administration sought to de-escalate tensions and reachinformal compromises rather than directly counter these threats.
The new U.S. administration can strengthen its position against Iran by focusing on three keyareas:
ii) Controlling Iran’s efforts to rebuild its regional proxy network,
iii) Halting the proliferation of Iranian missile and drone technologies.
If the Trump administration aims to reach a serious agreement with Iran, it could takemeaningful steps to alleviate concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear weapons production capacity. These steps may include granting the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) greateraccess, reducing uranium stockpiles, and lowering enrichment levels.
Additionally, an agreement to halt the development of a plutonium pathway could help buildconfidence in Iran’s intentions and enable verification that its nuclear weapons programs havebeen suspended. The U.S. strategy toward Iran should clearly outline both the opportunitiesavailable to Iran and the risks it would face if it continues its nuclear activities.
On the diplomatic front, the Trump administration could propose an emergency framework toswiftly authorize direct negotiations with Iranian officials, laying the groundwork for furtherdiscussions.
Sanctions and military options against Iran also play a crucial role in this process. Simultaneously, serious negotiations could begin between the U.S. and China regardingIranian oil purchases. If China is unwilling to cooperate, these negotiations could be accompanied by economic pressure.
Additionally, China could be warned that a military threat against Iran’s nuclear program might put regional energy supplies at risk, which could encourage greater cooperation.
Ultimately, given the current regional dynamics, the U.S. has an opportunity to limit Iran’sinfluence in the Middle East and reduce the threats posed by Iranian proxies to Americanforces. At a time when a strike on Iran’s nuclear program is becoming an increasingly likelypossibility, Iran’s resistance appears weaker compared to Trump’s first term. As a result, Iran may adopt a more conciliatory stance.
Recent signals from Iranian officials have been positive. However, the increasing rhetoricfrom some Iranian officials and experts advocating for the rapid acquisition of nuclearweapons should be interpreted as part of a strategy of “threats” and “bargaining.” Iran’spursuit of nuclear armament could be seen as a deterrent measure aimed at enhancing itsmilitary and strategic capacity.
However, nuclear weapons production is not limited to merely developing these weapons; it also involves complex processes such as ensuring secure storage, building effective deliverysystems, and guaranteeing operational capability. In this context, nuclear armament posesserious risks for Iran. First and foremost, such a strategy carries the potential to escalate therisk of direct confrontation with the United States and Israel. Additionally, it could furtherisolate Iran on the international stage and lead to the intensification of existing sanctions. Theability to leverage its nuclear program as a bargaining tool in international negotiations wouldalso be significantly weakened.
The Pezeshkian government’s attempt to initiate diplomatic engagement with Western powersin September last year can be seen as an important step in this regard. However, if Iran movestoward developing nuclear weapons, the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal(France, Germany, and the UK) will likely reconsider their diplomatic efforts and advocatefor the reimplementation of UN sanctions. This could result in Iran being reclassified as a security threat under the UN Charter within the international system.
Iran’s nuclear ambitions can be interpreted as a response to its strategic vulnerabilities. Itappears that Iran has taken this strategic risk to compensate for regional failures and preemptfuture threats. However, this step is unlikely to resolve Iran’s long-term strategic dilemmas. On the contrary, the process of developing nuclear weapons carries the risk of escalatingregional conflicts in the short term. Moreover, even if Iran achieves ultimate deterrence, theregime’s fundamental problems—weak intelligence capabilities, conventional militaryshortcomings, economic difficulties, and loss of domestic legitimacy—will persist. Thesechallenges will continue to reinforce the willingness of Iran’s adversaries to exploit theregime’s vulnerabilities.