Op-Ed

The Bolduc Brief: The Cease-Fire Brokered by the Trump Administration – An Analysis

BY Donald Bolduc

Trump’s cease-fire, built on wishful thinking that Hamas would police itself, stripped away Israel’s deterrent, let a hostile force regroup, and proved that without regional ownership of security and accountability, “peace” is a photo op and a pause before the next round.

Brigadier General (Ret.) Donald C. Bolduc, former US Army Special Forces Commander. (US Army)

The cease-fire agreement brokered by the Trump administration marked a pivotal moment in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas, yet it was undeniably vulnerable from the very beginning. Political agreements in regions rife with complex histories of animosity and violence must rest on stable foundations; however, this particular truce was undermined by several critical misjudgments that would ultimately reveal themselves over time.

Advertisement

One of the most contentious aspects of the cease-fire was the decision to remove Israeli defense forces, thereby leaving Hamas in a position to enforce security within the region. This move not only raised questions about the safety of Israeli citizens but also set a dangerous precedent. Without the deterrent presence of Israeli forces, the truce essentially provided Hamas with an opportunity to regroup and assert control. History has shown that groups like Hamas often capitalize on such voids, and it was overly optimistic to assume they would adhere to a peace agreement, given their track record of violence and intimidation. The expectation that Hamas would respect the terms of the cease-fire was naïve; their tendency to violate agreements for tactical advantages was well-documented.

Further complicating matters was the involvement of various Arab nations that pressured Hamas into accepting a deal that they did not embrace. Such dynamics often lead to hasty agreements that lack a thorough understanding of the underlying conflicts and grievances. It became increasingly apparent that Hamas would seek to exploit any perceived weakness, aiming to expand its control and influence over contested territories. The very fact that Arab nations felt compelled to endorse this cease-fire hinted at deeper fractures within the region, revealing that many actors were unwilling participants rather than enthusiastic allies.

As anticipated, the cease-fire swiftly became a flashpoint for renewed violence; the attacking of Israeli defense forces by Hamas was perhaps an inevitable outcome. The subsequent Israeli retaliation followed a familiar pattern that has played out numerous times in the past—each cycle of violence further entrenched animosities, making genuine peace seem increasingly elusive. While the release of hostages as a direct outcome of the cease-fire was a noteworthy development, it was painfully clear that this was the only tangible achievement. The grand declaration of achieving everlasting peace was not only premature but also indicative of a profound misunderstanding of the complexities at play in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Advertisement

Hamas’s predictable declarations of commitment to the truce should be viewed with skepticism. Even as they publicly advocate for peace, their past behavior suggests that such statements are often nothing more than strategic maneuvers aimed at deflecting blame and obscuring their true intentions. This shifting of responsibility is a common tactic employed by militant groups, and it underscores the difficulty in establishing trust, a foundational element of any lasting peace agreement.

In summation, the cease-fire brokered by the Trump administration illustrated the perils of seeking immediate accolades in a highly volatile environment. The acknowledgment that the pursuit of peace would be a long-term endeavor—even beyond the tenure of the Trump administration—was crucial yet often overlooked. Chasing after quick resolutions without addressing the underlying issues left the region as unstable as before. The idea that a lasting peace could be achieved in the Middle East within a short timeframe, through any single administration’s efforts, is likely a bridge too far.

Advertisement

Ultimately, while the support of the United States and the Western world is undeniably significant, achieving true stability will require a concerted effort from the countries within the Middle East. It is critical to recognize that the path toward lasting stability in this region is fraught with challenges that cannot be remedied solely by external intervention. The onus lies with the nations in the region to engage in dialogue, build trust, and confront the deep-rooted issues that perpetuate conflict. Only then can there be hope for genuine stability and peace in the Middle East.

Donald C. Bolduc

Advertisement

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

More From SOFREP

COMMENTS

You must become a subscriber or login to view or post comments on this article.