The Unraveling of Middle East Peace: Concessions Without Commitment

The Unraveling of Middle East Peace: Concessions Without Accountability?

In 2024, the United States initiated an ambitious peace framework for the Middle East under President Donald Trump’s renewed negotiation strategy. This approach aimed to reshape the region through strategic incentives, encouraging Arab nations toward peace, stability and cooperation with Israel.

The plan offered tailored concessions to each major regional actor:
– Saudi Arabia was promised the path to acquiring F-35s in exchange for normalization talks.
– Qatar received major non-NATO ally status from Washington
– Hamas benefited from repeated ceasefire assurances amid U.S. pressure on Israel
– Iran saw a period of restraint where Israel was discouraged from taking decisive action against its rearming efforts
– Syria offered limited support to the vision of rehabilitating certain controversial figures as legitimate leaders
– Lebanon received promises of global backing if it took steps to disarm Hezbollah

On paper, this comprehensive strategy appeared bold and promising. But reality has painted a different picture.

Saudi Arabia: Prioritizing Arms over Normalization

Saudi Arabia returned to Washington demanding F-35 fighter jets while simultaneously rejecting serious progress on normalization with Israel. The quid pro quo for advanced weaponry—supposedly in exchange for peace talks—is clearly not materializing, revealing the framework’s fundamental flaw of mixing security promises with geopolitical leverage.

Qatar: A Double Standard?

Qatar secured unprecedented U.S. military protection but continues to host and financially support Hamas leadership while funding their propaganda campaigns against Israel. Most notably, this year’s Doha conference supported by Al Jazeera denied the October 7 atrocities committed by Hamas in Gaza, dismissing reports as “fabricated Israeli propaganda.” The event attacked press coverage that reflected reality—a troubling contradiction for nations receiving American defense guarantees.

Iran and Hezbollah: The Danger of Unchecked Arming

The framework’s most glaring failure lies with Iran. Despite enjoying American assurances to keep Israel contained, Tehran has rapidly modernized its arsenal this year—restocking missiles, rebuilding drone manufacturing capabilities, and sending advanced munitions tozbollah. While Israeli intelligence had superior air dominance and actionable intel, the U.S. repeatedly warned against offensive action by promising that America would counter any Iranian threats itself.

Lebanon’s Complicity in Hezbollah’s Strength

Lebanon failed its part of the bargain through negligence or complicity—allowing United Nations peacekeepers to film IDF positions which likely ended up feeding Hezbollah intelligence. The promise to transform Beirut into a regional hub has become ironic given Tehran directs Lebanese policy concerning military strength over civilian stability.

Syria: Escalating Attacks and Unreformed Leadership

Syria’s participation in the initiative collapsed under the weight of reality when pro-Assad forces orchestrated attacks mirroring Hamas’ October 7 atrocities, including deadly assaults against Israeli civilians. The notion that some Syrian actors could become constructive regional players has been discredited by these continued escalations.

Gaza: False Promises for a Peaceful Future

Gaza was supposed to serve as part of the blueprint—perhaps a model post-conflict society—but remains under Hamas control despite widespread promises of rebuilding and normality. Instead, it’s reorganizing its military capacity while Western powers continue diplomatic efforts that don’t translate into tangible security improvements.

The core issue emerging from this failed initiative is stark: powerful nations are receiving material rewards without reciprocal responsibility or implementation. As October 7th anniversary approaches, the uncomfortable question facing the U.S., Israel and international observers alike becomes painfully clear—how sustainable is peace based on one-sided commitments?

This framework has demonstrated that concessions alone don’t build stability; consistent accountability does.