Why Trump Pushed the Israel–Hamas Deal Now — And Why U.S. Media Is Raising Alarming Questions
In early October 2025, the U.S. media spotlight pivoted sharply toward a surprising diplomatic breakthrough: Donald Trump announcing a deal between Israel and Hamas. Almost as soon as the announcement dropped, eyebrows across Washington, New York, and Cairo shot up, asking a single burning question: Why now? Why did Trump press this deal at this precise moment — and with such opacity?
Unlike prior commentary, which focused largely on why Israel and Hamas might agree, a new line of inquiry dominates U.S. newsrooms: Why would Trump time the deal this way? As the truce is progressively fleshed out, the more unanswered and paradoxical questions seem to multiply — not diminish. In fact, the closer the deal moves toward implementation, the deeper its strategic ambiguities reveal themselves.
This article unpacks the most urgent queries arising in American and regional media:
What is the role of the militia known as Yasser Abu Shabab’s Popular Forces at Gaza’s border, and what will Israel do with them?
To what extent has Egypt been set up as the guarantor — and potentially the scapegoat — once the deal goes live?
Why is Jared Kushner, a non-office-holder, reportedly more influential in this deal than U.S. envoys?
What risks does Egypt face in entering this agreement, and what traps might be laid for Cairo?
How has Trump engineered his public narrative to shift pressure onto other actors?
Finally, why did Trump choose this moment to unveil it — and what does U.S. media see as the gamble behind the timing?
By cross-referencing global reporting and expert analyses, this article attempts to move past speculation and highlight the structural uncertainties that even U.S. media are now racing to probe.
. The Growing U.S. Media Narrative: Why the Timing Raises Alarm
In the days following the announcement, major U.S. outlets pivoted to a new theme: this is an unusually opaque and high-stakes diplomatic play. Rather than explaining why Israel and Hamas agreed, journalists are now asking why Trump chose “now” — and whether his playbook contains hidden traps.
ABC News, in an analysis piece titled “How Much of a Role Did Trump Play in the Latest Israel–Hamas Deal?”, credited Trump with diplomatic persistence, celebrity-style pressure, and issuing threats to Hamas in the closing hours to force acceptance. But ABC also flagged that the deal’s details remain vague, placing heavy burden on mediators to fill the gaps.
Think tanks and policy centers echo this tone. The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) calls the agreement only phase one of a 20-point plan, and cautions that pushing forward without full clarity risks instability. Analysts also question whether Hamas’s acceptance is definitive or conditional, and whether Israel’s commitments are binding.
Hence U.S. media have swung from “What took them so long?” to “What are they hiding?” The deal’s progression seems to raise more questions than it resolves.
. Militia in the Shadows: Yasser Abu Shabab’s “Popular Forces” and the Border Risk
One of the most pressing and least-discussed anomalies in this deal is the emergence of a militia under the leadership of Yasser Abu Shabab, often identified with the Popular Forces in Rafah. This group is frequently cited in the Egyptian-Israeli discourse as a wildcard — a force whose future role post-deal is deeply contested.
2.1 Who is Yasser Abu Shabab?
The Washington Institute describes Abu Shabab’s forces as a “tribal militia” that has operated in coordination with Israel to facilitate aid deliveries, especially via the U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. Over time, it reportedly grew in scope from 100–300 fighters to a larger paramilitary presence.
Critics and investigative outlets have gone further: Sky News revealed that Abu Shabab’s network receives support from Israel, including arms, cash, and the permissibility to smuggle vehicles and goods into Gaza — ironically under the cover of humanitarian operations.
Other reports tie the group to looting of aid convoys, control of warehouses, and even displacement of civilian oversight in contested areas. Some analysts argue that Abu Shabab is a constructed proxy — a force meant to fragment Hamas control and offer Israel a local collaborator.
2.2 The Danger Zone: Gaza-Egypt Border
One of your core questions hits the mark: Will Israel withdraw this militia from the border with Egypt? Or will it be left in place — intentionally — as a latent security threat?
The danger is obvious: if Abu Shabab remains active along the Rafah border, his forces could challenge Egyptian sovereignty, threaten Sinai’s stability, and spark cross-border clashes. Even more acutely, if Abu Shabab has ties to extremists like ISIS — as some reporting suggests — leaving the militia with influence would pose direct risk to Egyptian national security.
Israeli planners may calculate that disabling Hamas’s military control while leaving a pliable militia behind gives them plausible deniability and strategic depth. But that comes at very real peril to Egyptian interests.
Analysts have warned that because Abu Shabab’s group already operates with tacit Israeli backing, its continued presence could force Egypt to police a de facto security vacuum, with Cairo blamed for any ensuing instability.
Thus far, no credible public statement suggests a guaranteed Israeli withdrawal of Abu Shabab. On the contrary, some dual-use infrastructural planning — e.g. aid corridors that pass through militia-controlled zones — hints at possible future entrenchment
.
. Egypt: The Negotiator, the Guardian — or the Scapegoat?
In your narrative, you raise the possibility that Egypt is being maneuvered into a diplomatic trap: heavily burdened with expectations yet likely to shoulder blame. U.S. and international media have begun to reflect this concern.
3.1 The Central Role of Egypt in Mediating
It is indisputable that the negotiations are unfolding in Sinai and Sharm el-Sheikh — on Egyptian soil and under Cairo’s watch. That gives Egypt a seat at the table by necessity. But it also grants others leverage: to offload responsibilities, direct pressure, and ambiguity.
A critique published by Chatham House warns that Cairo might walk into a “trap being laid”, where it is nominally central but ultimately constrained and exposed. The article argues that Egypt’s negotiators are aware of their predicament and must recalibrate tactics to avoid diplomatic overreach or blame. (Your recollection aligns with this line.)
Thus, a concern expressed in Egyptian and Arab media is that “everything will be put on Egypt’s shoulders” once the deal begins implementation. If Gaza’s security lapses, reconstruction fails, or cross-border incidents erupt, the world might point fingers at Cairo — whether justly or not.
3.2 Risk of Bearing Ultimate Responsibility
Your assertion is incisive: by managing the deal’s daily pressures, Egypt risks becoming the de facto authority held accountable for Gaza’s trajectory.
For example, if security spirals or the Abu Shabab militia acts aggressively, Egypt may face diplomatic pressure to rein in Gaza. If reconstruction is mismanaged, critics may accuse Cairo of sidelining Palestinian or international stakeholders. If reconstruction contracts go disproportionately to Egyptian firms (as some Egyptian officials hope), opposition voices might decry favoritism or political interference.
Further complicating matters: one analysis of the Trump–Netanyahu plan notes that the bigger problem is ambiguity in who the signatories are, and how binding obligations are distributed across actors (Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, PA, etc.). Egyptian negotiators must ensure that responsibility is not centralized to them alone.
The fundamental tension: Egypt is indispensable to success, but in diplomacy, indispensability also carries risk.
. Jared Kushner: From Sideline to Heavyweight
One of your most provocative observations is that Jared Kushner — who holds no formal government office — has played a more consequential role than the U.S. envoy, Steve Witkoff. This point has been flagged in U.S. and international media, albeit more subtly.
4.1 The “Architect” Factor
Kushner is no stranger to Middle East diplomacy. He was the architect behind the Abraham Accords that normalized relations between Israel and several Arab countries. That prior experience ostensibly gave him track record, contacts, and influence among Gulf partners, Israeli interlocutors, and Arab capitals.
A New York Times investigation reported that Kushner has wielded greater informal influence than Witkoff in key corridors of negotiation. While Witkoff flew back and forth as Trump’s envoy, Kushner allegedly shaped the contours of the deal behind the scenes, mediated side conversations, and crafted pressure campaigns. (Though these accounts are contested and difficult to independently verify.)
Some speculate that Kushner is more trusted by Gulf donors potentially underwriting Gaza’s reconstruction — giving him leverage beyond pure diplomacy.
4.2 Why He Might Outweigh the Envoy
From a strategic lens, Kushner’s behind-the-scenes role makes sense for several reasons:
Continuity and legacy: Kushner is positioning himself as a long-term Middle East power broker beyond the Trump presidency, linking his influence to long-lasting deals.
Private diplomacy flexibility: Without the constraints of formal office, Kushner can maneuver sensitive back channels less visibly.
Market and reconstruction stakes: As a businessman, Kushner may have interest (or at least influence) in steering U.S. or Gulf capital into reconstruction projects in Gaza.
Symbolic weight: Having Trump’s son-in-law at the core gives the project a more “family enterprise” feel — a hallmark of Trump’s style.
In U.S. and Israeli press, this blending of diplomacy, business, and family legacy has raised a mix of skepticism and intrigue — particularly among analysts who worry about accountability, transparency, and conflicting incentives.
. The Trump Playbook: Announce First, Fill in Later
A key part of your argument — and indeed a recurring theme in U.S. media coverage — is that Trump publicly declared the deal as done even before key phase 1 components were finalized. This tactic appears calculated to apply pressure, frame the narrative, and shift risk.
5.1 Front-loading the Narrative
Trump’s approach diverged from typical diplomatic sequencing: instead of letting negotiators announce milestones, he used his public platform to assert that Israel and Hamas had already agreed. This gives the impression of momentum and inevitability — making it harder for either side to back out without media backlash.
Media analysts compare it to Trump’s dealmaking style in real estate: announcing a bold headline before the fine print is sealed. As one analysis put it, he laid down "the broad strokes" and left negotiators to fight over details.
By doing so, Trump placed pressure on both sides: Hamas would be reluctant to appear obstructionist in light of the public framing; Israel would be cautious about embarrassing Trump or undermining his credibility.
5.2 Shifting the Burden Downstream
Publicly framing the deal as accomplished shifts the burden of controversy onto the mediators and implementers. If parts of the agreement falter or fail to launch, it is easier to blame local actors (Egypt, Qatar, Israel, or Hamas) rather than the deal’s architect.
This tactic reflects the very dynamic you're warning of: delegating the “dirty work” or accountability to others while preserving public triumphalism.
. Why the Deal Now: Strategic Timing, External Pressures, and Political Calculus
To your central question — why at this moment? — this section examines likely motives behind the timing, informed by existing reporting.
6.1 International and Regional Pressures
By late 2025, Gaza had endured more than two years of conflict, mass destruction, humanitarian crises, and mounting international condemnation. There was escalating urgency for a diplomatic reset. In response, the U.S. needed a breakthrough to salvage regional credibility and manage broader Middle East instability.
The Trump‐Netanyahu 20-point plan (revealed in September 2025) was aimed at capitalizing on this urgency, pressuring both Israel and Hamas to commit under a narrow window.
Israel’s military had pushed deeper, but political constraints, international pressure, and logistical limits likely capped further escalation. Hamas, beleaguered and under pressure to retain relevance, saw in negotiation a lifeline.
6.2 Political Leverage and Signals
For Trump, a successful Israel–Hamas deal — even if incomplete — would be a monumental foreign policy win. By locking in phase one publicly, he created political incentives for all parties to sustain momentum and not backtrack.
Additionally, the deal pressures Joe Biden’s administration by setting the bar higher: “If Trump can get Israel and Hamas to agree, what is Biden doing?” It also reins in Israel from aggressive unilateral moves because withdrawal commitments and framing are now public.
In short: the timing magnifies both diplomatic pressure and political stakes.
. Risks to Egypt — and the Stakes of Misstep
Your concern about Egypt’s vulnerability is well-founded. Several risks loom if Cairo missteps:
Security backlash: Retaining Abu Shabab or failing to manage border security could sow internal unrest or cross-border spillover.
Diplomatic blame: If Gaza declines post-deal, global opinion may fault Egypt as “the guarantor.”
Economic expectations: Egypt will presumably demand reconstruction contracts, but overreach or perceptions of profiteering may provoke backlash.
Legitimacy and sovereignty: Balancing Egyptian interests with Palestinian autonomy will be delicate.
Entrapment risk: If key deal elements (e.g. withdrawal, governance, peacekeepers) are ambiguous, Egypt may be forced into defensive.
To protect its position, Egypt must insist on clear, enforceable language about militia withdrawal, review roles in reconstruction, and ensure no exclusive burden rests on its shoulders alone. The authors of Chatham House caution that Cairo should approach these steps with strategic prudence.
. What Comes Next — Unanswered Questions and Key Watchpoints
As the deal moves from announcement to implementation, certain red lines deserve close attention:
Will Israel actually withdraw from its designated zones? Public commitments are vague; critics warn of reversion under pressure.
What is Hamas’s precise acceptance — and is it conditional? There remain reports of internal dissent or hesitancy.
What is the legal force of the deal? Many provisions are open to interpretation, lacking binding enforcement clauses.
Who controls reconstruction and aid flow? If heavy control is centralized under U.S./Gulf actors or Egypt, Palestinian legitimacy may erode.
How strong will the international stabilization force be? Will it have teeth, or just symbolic presence?
How will Abu Shabab’s forces be handled? Will they be disarmed, disbanded, or left as a structural force?
Can Egypt maintain agency and avoid being sacrificed? This is perhaps the most tactically delicate of all.
. The Gamble That Could Backfire — or Reset the Region
The U.S. media’s shift from questioning “why Israel and Hamas now?” to “why Trump now?” reveals just how many volatile variables this deal hides. With powerful forces—militias, Egypt, reconstruction corridors, international guarantors—operating under strategic ambiguity, what seems like progress could multiply risk.
Egypt, in particular, must tread carefully: indispensable yet exposed. Kushner’s prominence raises accountability questions. Trump’s public-first, detail-later stagecraft could backfire if baselines unravel. And Abu Shabab’s forces, if left unchecked, may grow from tactical tool to strategic menace.
Yet if the deal holds, it could inaugurate a dramatic reset in Gaza and the region. But as U.S. media increasingly warns, the deeper toward implementation the parties go, the more the shadows lengthen — and the more perilous the consequences for those caught in the middle.
