Follow us on social

Joe Biden Gaza ceasefire

Biden & Trump take credit for Gaza ceasefire

Cautious optimism as first phase signals hostage return and cessation of bombing. But will it hold?

Analysis | Middle East

The achievement of a Gaza hostage deal and temporary ceasefire ahead of Trump's inauguration demonstrates the power that the U.S. had all along. The Biden administration simply refused to use American leverage to push Netanyahu, despite U.S. officials’ assertions that they were “working tirelessly towards a ceasefire.”

In his remarks about the deal, and in his response to journalists afterwards, President Biden sought to take full credit. He pointed out that this was the deal he proposed in May, yet did not acknowledge that it was Trump’s willingness to pressure Israel to reach a ceasefire in time for his inauguration that actually achieved the deal, which Biden had failed to for months. "A diplomat briefed on the ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas credited progress in the talks in part to the influence of President-elect Donald Trump, saying it was 'the first time there has been real pressure on the Israeli side to accept a deal’,” according to the Washington Post.

Unfortunately, despite the jubilation of the population in Gaza as well as that of the families of hostages held by Hamas, there have already been signs that Netanyahu has no interest in a lasting ceasefire. Last month, Netanyahu told Channel 12 news that the Israeli military would resume fighting even if a deal were achieved.

“If there is a deal — and I hope there will be — Israel will return to fighting afterward,” he said. “There is no point in pretending otherwise because returning to fighting is needed in order to complete the goals of the war.”

This statement ignores the reality that Secretary of State Blinken acknowledged on Monday, that Israel’s war in Gaza has generated more recruits for Hamas than it had before October 7, 2023, demonstrating that Israel’s actions have been counterproductive to its alleged goal of reestablishing Israeli security. Bezalel Smotrich, Israel’s far-right Minister of Finance, stated on Tuesday that “the war must continue,” but did not indicate if he would exit Netanyahu’s government, as he had previously threatened to do if the prime minister agreed to a ceasefire.

In contrast to Israeli politicians’ pledges to keep fighting, and Biden’s efforts to take credit, President-elect Trump expressed his intention to build on the ceasefire. On Truth Social, Donald Trump posted, “This EPIC ceasefire agreement could have only happened as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our allies…”

Trump said that he would build on the ceasefire’s momentum to expand the Abraham Accords, something the Biden team tried and failed to accomplish. In particular, both Biden and Trump hoped to facilitate the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. With Israel engaged in a brutal campaign of violence and starvation against civilians in Gaza, normalization with Saudi Arabia was impossible. If the ceasefire holds, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman may be more willing to normalize, although that agreement would be jeopardized by Israel’s ambition to annex the West Bank.

News of the ceasefire broke on the same day a new poll came out finding that the genocide in Gaza was the number one issue that kept Biden’s supporters from voting for Harris. Twenty-nine percent of those who had voted for Biden in 2020 but did not vote for Harris in 2024 cited Gaza as the reason. This outranked the economy (24 percent) and immigration (11 percent), according to the poll from YouGov and the Institute for Middle East Understanding (IMEU).

Trump’s success in achieving a temporary ceasefire and hostage deal, combined with the disastrous political effects of Harris’s unwillingness to break with her boss on foreign policy, both demonstrate the folly of Biden’s unconditional support for Israel. If Biden had used the United States’ considerable leverage to achieve a ceasefire, his party might not have lost the election.

The question that remains now is how long the ceasefire will last. The terms stipulate a six week cessation in fighting and an exchange of hostages by both sides, primarily 33 hostages held by Hamas over 42 days, in exchange for approximately 1,000 Palestinian prisoners.

Speculation on social media and after Biden’s remarks was rife about how long the deal is likely to last. After boasting that he achieved his goal of a ceasefire by his inauguration, Trump may lose interest in reining in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The deal may last through the first phase of 42 days, but beyond that the Israeli press has reported that Netanyahu promised Smotrich that the fighting would resume.

If he wished, Trump could contribute to a more lasting ceasefire by maintaining pressure on Netanyahu and upholding U.S. laws that would end American security assistance to Israel due to its human rights abuses and blocking of humanitarian aid.


Top image credit: U.S. President Joe Biden, flanked by U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris and U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, speaks after negotiators reached a phased deal for a ceasefire in Gaza between Israel and Hamas, during remarks at the White House in Washington, U.S., January 15, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Analysis | Middle East
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.