Donald Trump’s Return to the Middle East: The Sharm El-Sheikh Ceasefire Deal and Egypt’s Strategic Gamble
 |
Entrance banner of Sharm El-Sheikh Peace Summit 2025 showcasing Egypt’s diplomatic leadership |
In a surprising turn of international diplomacy, former U.S. President Donald Trump has reappeared on the global stage, announcing what he called a “historic roadmap for peace in Gaza.” His sudden involvement in the Sharm El-Sheikh negotiations—hosted by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi—has sparked both hope and skepticism across the Middle East. The proposed Gaza Ceasefire Agreement, reportedly centered on Israel’s withdrawal to a so-called “yellow line”, aims to end one of the longest and most devastating conflicts in the region.
The return of Trump to Middle East politics, combined with Egypt’s bold diplomatic initiative, has positioned Sharm El-Sheikh once again as a focal point for global diplomacy. Yet behind the cameras and formal smiles, the meeting exposed deep regional divides and complex power plays involving Israel, Hamas, Egypt, and the United States.
Background: Egypt’s Renewed Role in Gaza Diplomacy
Egypt has traditionally served as a mediator between Israel and Palestinian factions, particularly Hamas. Since the Camp David Accords (1978), Cairo has maintained a delicate balance: preserving peace with Israel while supporting Palestinian statehood rhetorically. However, the 2025 Sharm El-Sheikh talks mark a new chapter—one that reflects both Egypt’s ambition and its anxiety.
After months of intense conflict in Gaza, which claimed thousands of lives and triggered global protests, the international community pressed for a new peace framework. President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, aware of the mounting humanitarian crisis on his northeastern border, sought to reassert Egypt’s influence as a regional stabilizer. Hosting the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh was a calculated move—a reminder of Egypt’s central role in Middle Eastern peace architecture.
The Return of Donald Trump: Timing and Symbolism
When Donald Trump unexpectedly appeared on the diplomatic scene, his message was unmistakable: “I offered a map.” The map, as he claimed, showed Israel’s withdrawal line—the so-called “yellow border”—which would redefine control zones in Gaza. For many observers, the announcement felt like déjà vu of the “Deal of the Century” proposed during his presidency in 2020.
This re-entry was not coincidental. With U.S. elections approaching and global tensions high, Trump’s move served multiple purposes:
Rebranding himself as a global peacemaker.
Testing the Biden administration’s Middle East strategy.
Gaining leverage with both Israeli conservatives and Arab moderates.
His decision to appear in Sharm El-Sheikh—an Egyptian resort long associated with peace conferences—was rich in symbolism. For Egypt, hosting Trump alongside delegations from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Nations underscored Cairo’s diplomatic comeback.
Sisi’s Strategic Gamble
President Sisi’s invitation to Trump was as bold as it was risky. Egypt’s leadership sought to break the stalemate between Israel and Hamas while simultaneously asserting independence from Washington’s current administration. By giving Trump a platform, Sisi signaled that Cairo is willing to engage any global actor capable of delivering stability—even if that means upsetting current U.S. policy circles.
Analysts see this as part of a broader Egyptian geopolitical strategy:
To reposition Cairo as a neutral mediator after years of regional polarization.
To attract international investment by demonstrating diplomatic leverag.
To remind the world that no lasting Gaza deal can bypass Egypt
The move also reflects Sisi’s domestic calculations. As economic pressures mount, successful diplomacy can serve as both a national morale boost and an opportunity to attract foreign aid and partnerships
 |
Map showing Israel’s proposed “yellow line” Gaza withdrawal plan under Trump’s 2025 ceasefire roadmap |
Inside the Negotiations: The “Yellow Line” Plan
According to sources close to the negotiations, the “yellow line” represents a partial Israeli withdrawal from Gaza territories while maintaining a security perimeter. In exchange, Hamas and other Palestinian factions would agree to a long-term ceasefire, supervised by an international coalition led by Egypt and possibly the United Nations.
This proposal, though ambitious, faces serious obstacles:
Israel’s internal divisions: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition remains under pressure from far-right members opposing any concessions.
Hamas’s distrust: The group doubts both Israel’s commitment and Trump’s sincerity.
Regional power dynamics: Iran, Qatar, and Turkey each hold different stakes in Gaza’s political landscape.
Still, the talks marked the first time in years that both Israeli and Palestinian representatives were in indirect proximity under Egyptian auspices—a diplomatic success in itself.
Israel’s Dilemma: Between Security and Legitimacy
For Israel, the Sharm El-Sheikh talks arrived at a moment of intense political crisis. Netanyahu’s government faces growing domestic unrest and declining international credibility. The war in Gaza, initially framed as a fight against terrorism, has spiraled into a humanitarian catastrophe, damaging Israel’s global image.
Accepting Trump’s “yellow line” could ease international pressure but risks alienating Netanyahu’s far-right allies. Rejecting it, however, may isolate Israel diplomatically and embolden calls for sanctions.
The Israeli media reacted cautiously. While right-wing commentators praised Trump’s “clarity,” centrist and left-wing outlets described the plan as a “temporary illusion” that fails to address root causes—namely, the occupation and the blockade.
Palestinian Perspectives: Between Hope and Exhaustion
Palestinian reactions were mixed. Hamas officials expressed skepticism toward any plan associated with Trump, citing his previous recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. However, there is a quiet recognition that the Gaza population cannot endure another prolonged war.
Civil society groups and independent Palestinian voices cautiously welcomed Egypt’s involvement, describing Cairo as the “only Arab capital capable of mediating effectively.” Still, they demanded guarantees of humanitarian relief, prisoner exchanges, and international oversight.
The Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah, often sidelined in recent years, tried to reassert its role, with senior figures calling for a “unified Arab peace initiative” to accompany any ceasefire.
Regional Reactions: Cairo, Riyadh, Doha, and Beyond
Egypt
Egyptian media hailed the summit as a “diplomatic victory.” Analysts in Cairo noted that the event restored Egypt’s image as the primary broker of Middle East peace, a title once threatened by Qatar’s growing influence.
Saudi Arabia
Riyadh maintained a cautious tone, emphasizing the importance of a two-state solution while quietly supporting Egypt’s leadership. Saudi outlets described Trump’s presence as “symbolically important” but warned that “peace cannot be built on personal publicity.”
Qatar
Doha’s participation reflected its ongoing role as a funder of Gaza reconstruction. Qatari diplomats viewed the talks as an opportunity to reshape their relations with Egypt after years of tension.
The United States
The Biden administration, caught off guard by Trump’s reemergence, released a brief statement supporting “all efforts that advance peace.” Behind the scenes, however, Washington reportedly expressed irritation that Trump was undermining its diplomatic credibility.
The United Nations
UN Secretary-General António Guterres praised the talks as “a welcome step toward de-escalation,” while stressing that “true peace requires addressing the roots of the conflict.”
Geopolitical Implications: A Shifting Balance of Power
The Sharm El-Sheikh summit revealed more than just the outlines of a ceasefire—it exposed a broader reconfiguration of regional alliances. Egypt, once seen as a secondary player, reclaimed its status as a power broker. Meanwhile, the U.S. faces the uncomfortable reality of competing diplomatic tracks—one official, one unofficial—both originating from Washington politics
For Israel, the talks are a reminder that its security depends not only on military strength but also on international legitimacy. For the Palestinians, Egypt’s renewed involvement offers a glimmer of hope—albeit one clouded by fatigue and skepticism.
Why Egypt Matters
Egypt’s geographical position, historical legitimacy, and intelligence capabilities make it uniquely suited for Gaza diplomacy. Unlike other Arab states, Egypt shares a direct border with Gaza and manages the Rafah crossing, the only lifeline for humanitarian aid. Its relationship with both Israel and Hamas—though often tense—allows Cairo to serve as an intermediary trusted (or tolerated) by all sides.
Moreover, Egypt’s mediation efforts align with its national interests:
Preventing instability along its border.
Limiting Iran’s influence in Palestinian affairs.
Strengthening ties with Gulf states through diplomatic leadership.
The Road Ahead: Challenges and Scenarios
Whether Trump’s involvement leads to a lasting ceasefire remains uncertain. Three scenarios currently dominate expert discussions:
In all three outcomes, Egypt’s role will remain central—either as a peacemaker or as a witness to another failed effort.
A Fragile Peace in a Fractured Region
The Sharm El-Sheikh Ceasefire Deal, if realized, could mark a turning point in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Yet it also illustrates how fragile peace remains when it depends on personalities rather than institutions. Trump’s reappearance adds unpredictability, while Sisi’s gamble underscores Egypt’s determination to remain relevant in regional politics.
As the cameras leave Sharm El-Sheikh and the world turns its attention elsewhere, the people of Gaza, Israel, and Egypt will live with the consequences of these high-level talks. Whether history remembers this as a genuine step toward peace—or merely another theatrical episode—depends on what happens next.
