Donald Trump has relentlessly insisted that the United States—or even he personally—should “take over” Gaza, remove its population of more than 2 million Palestinians, and turn the region into a “Riviera” on the Mediterranean for the “world’s people.” Just this week he posted an AI-generated video showing him and Elon Musk partying in “Trump Gaza,” a paradise dominated by a golden statue of the president.
As a practical and political matter, the idea is a nonstarter. But simply by proposing it, Trump may have paved the way for two more attainable goals that could reshape the Middle East—and lead to chaos for Palestinians, particularly those in the West Bank.
The first seems to be a nuclear agreement with Iran. Trump has been fairly open about his desire for a deal. After he announced new sanctions against the country early this month, Trump held a press conference in which he addressed Iran directly: “I would love to be able to make a great deal, a deal where you can get on with your lives and you’ll do wonderfully.” Trump must recognize, though, that the Israeli right—and its conservative allies in America—would be furious about such an agreement and demand some form of compensation.
Which leads to his second goal. In the same press conference, Trump hinted that he might allay Israel’s concerns by offering to expand its formal control in the West Bank. When asked whether he supported Israel’s “sovereignty” in the region, he said that his administration would “be making an announcement probably on that very specific topic over the next four weeks.” Palestinians are still holding their breath.
Annexing additional portions of the West Bank sounds tame compared with Gaz-a-Lago. And that could be precisely the point. By repeating his plan to clear out Gaza, Trump has shifted the Overton window in the Middle East and reinforced the idea that Palestinians’ claims are somehow void. The move follows a standard Trump tactic: say the same shocking thing over and over until it isn’t shocking anymore. Gaz-a-Lago sounds like madness, but apply a Trumpian lens, and a certain method appears—one that just might get him a nuclear deal with Iran.
There are several reasons to think he can make such an agreement, and probably one with favorable terms for the U.S. First, Iran’s bargaining position is exceptionally weak. Israel has dealt extensive damage to Tehran’s regional proxies, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, Iraqi and Syrian militias, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas. Worse still for Iran was the downfall of the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad in December, the regime’s most powerful ally in the region. As a result, Iran is unable to project power in the Middle East or adequately defend itself from potential attacks from Israel or elsewhere. A deal would grant the regime not only an added measure of protection but also relief from sanctions, which would allow the country to begin to rebuild its economy and rethink its national-security strategy.
Iran’s little remaining leverage mostly comes from the progress it has made toward nuclear weaponization since 2018, when Trump withdrew from the deal that President Barack Obama had negotiated. That’s why another agreement is one of the few options Iran has to reclaim some power. One could imagine the country instead racing for a nuclear weapon. But the regime must know that Washington has a plan to destroy its nuclear capabilities within a matter of days through round-the-clock bombing.
Still, in response to Trump’s announcement this month that he was increasing sanctions, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, seemed to dismiss the notion of a deal. But Tehran has otherwise been signaling for at least the past 18 months that it’s open to renewing talks with Washington.
As for Trump, a deal is the simplest way to keep Iran from sprinting toward a bomb and drawing the U.S. into conflict, which is the last thing he wants. It might also represent the best opportunity for him to establish himself as an international dealmaker. He would surely claim that his unique genius produced a deal that Obama couldn’t get (even though almost everything that will have made it possible happened under Joe Biden). He will probably demand a Nobel Peace Prize, and he might even get one.
The outline of such a deal is easy to imagine. Iran will likely have to halt further uranium enrichment, relinquish its current stock to be held in escrow outside the country, and place its nuclear facilities under the control—or at least observation—of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Perhaps it will have to destroy some centrifuges, too.
By most estimates, Iran is about a year away from developing a usable warhead; any agreement would substantially extend that interval. Obama got Iran to agree to pause any nuclear advances for 15 years. Given the regime’s weakened stance today, Trump might well get 20 or more. Trump could also insist that Iran verifiably limit the arms and funding it grants to regional proxies. Israel has effectively proved that these groups can’t defend Iran anyway, so the regime may be more willing to curtail its support.
The main obstacle to a deal might be Iran’s missile arsenal, which the country could refuse to decommission. But unilateral missile disarmament is virtually unheard-of in international relations. This shouldn’t deter the United States. Israel’s air strikes in October significantly degraded Iran’s arsenal as well as its ground-to-air defenses and its ability to produce fuel for sophisticated rockets. Iranian missiles don’t pose nearly the threat they once did.
If a deal gets done, that leaves the resulting anger of the Israeli right and its allies in America. The administration already has a blueprint for how it might assuage them: the “Peace to Prosperity” framework that Jared Kushner championed during Trump’s first term. Much of the proposal is impractical, even farcical, but it contains a plan for Israel to annex an additional 30 percent or more of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley. This would leave the remaining Palestinian territory surrounded by a new and U.S.-approved expanded Israel.
Right-wing Israelis regard the entire West Bank as their exclusive patrimony, so they might not be thrilled to get only 30 percent more of it. But the plan would significantly extend their area of sovereign control. In all likelihood, it would be sufficient to appease them after a nuclear deal is signed.
Palestinians will protest; they want a state, not a shrunken territory circumscribed and dominated by an enlarged Israel that may soon want to pursue total control from the river to the sea, as its governing coalition envisions. But Israel and the U.S. will likely be able to impose the scheme by force. Israel has already effectively controlled the territory since 1967; little stands in the way of the country claiming it outright.
“Peace to Prosperity” was widely ridiculed when it was released in 2020. Now, next to Trump’s Gaza plan, it will look to some on the right like a model of rationality and restraint. That could be enough to make it happen.
Gaz-a-Lago is a fantasy. But by reciting the proposal again and again, Trump might be setting in motion very real—and extremely ominous—consequences for the West Bank and the entire region.
The post What Trump Is Really After in the Middle East appeared first on The Atlantic.
