Between peace marketing and ground reality: What Trump's Gulf visit really means

The anticipated visit of US President Donald Trump to the Gulf region is already casting its shadow over the regional scene. The U.S.-backed de-escalation ahead of the visit serves to prepare an environment ripe for showcasing achievements in the style President Trump prefers—economic deals and theoretical solutions to chronic crises. Whether it's talk of ending the Gaza war on American terms or negotiating a truce with the Houthis alongside efforts to contain Iran, it all points to a temporary calm that cannot be relied upon for sustainable resolution. 

Notably, since the beginning of U.S.-Iran mediation, the Americans have leaned on a policy of escalation as leverage. However, this approach risks clashing with the complexities of reality. The cessation of American strikes on the Houthis does not imply peace but rather signals the return of the Yemen front to Israeli security calculations. Similarly, talks with Iran on uranium enrichment offer little by way of real solutions for Israel and may only usher more complications into the already covert conflict with Tehran.

On the Syrian front, Israel is implementing a strategy of selective deterrence—keeping Syria an open arena for strikes against any targets it views as a future threat. This gives Israel an intelligence edge within Syrian territory, ensuring continuous monitoring and the search for internal alliances. It's a strategy Israel is unlikely to abandon in the foreseeable future, effectively transforming Syria into a theatre for Israeli military and political manoeuvring. This directly threatens the future security of Syria’s societal components, especially considering the rising number of attacks and the interim administration’s failure to act as a reliable political or security guarantor over the past six months. 

In Gaza, increasing talk of a U.S.-proposed project to manage the strip reflects earlier proposals: a demilitarized Gaza, run by local councils made up of native Gazans, and supervised by private security companies at crossings and borders—all under full coordination with the Israelis. In other words, it’s a practical translation of ideas Israel has been promoting for months. 

As Trump’s envoy tours the region, speaking of potential breakthroughs with Iran that could avert military confrontation, he simultaneously advocates expanding the Abraham Accords beyond Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman, to include countries in the Levant such as Syria and Lebanon, and even large Muslim-majority nations like Indonesia. Yet the question remains: What real value does these agreements hold amid escalating crises, unresolved conflicts, and a glaring lack of realistic solutions on the ground capable of initiating a genuine peace process? 

Security continues to dominate the regional landscape, and Israel is racing against time to reshape every front it perceives as a threat, whether near or far. Therefore, the relevance of joining the Abraham Accords today is being reconsidered by both Arab countries and Israel, unlike the prevailing sentiment before the recent war. 

Thus, while the U.S. administration seeks to market diplomatic achievements and prepare the region for a new phase, it is confronted by on-the-ground realities that contradict theoretical proposals, keeping all actors hostage to the dynamics of ongoing conflicts across multiple fronts. 

As President Trump strives to mark a turning point in U.S. relations with the region and launch a new economic phase, ongoing geopolitical friction, particularly between the U.S.-backed India-Europe economic corridor and the China-backed Belt and Road Initiative, may escalate tensions across Asia, as evidenced by the India-Pakistan rivalry. Accordingly, any meaningful discussion of future economic projects must include US-China understandings that can put an end to regional conflicts and pave the way for genuine development.