The 2025 Gaza Peace Summit and the Trump Declaration: A New Middle East Equilibrium, or a Geopolitical Illusion?

Introduction: The Diplomatic Stage at Sharm el-Sheikh

The “Gaza Peace Summit,” held on October 13, 2025, in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt, became the focal point of global media attention. This summit, the first major foreign policy move by U.S. President Donald Trump after reassuming office, culminated in the “Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity.” This diplomatic initiative immediately polarized the international system: some hailed it as the beginning of peace, while strategists questioned whether it signaled the dawn of a new balance of power.

So, is this summit truly the start of lasting peace, or a geopolitical illusion viewed through the lens of the U.S.'s attempt to construct a new balance of power?

Background and Strategic Imperative of the Summit

The intense conflict in Gaza, ongoing since late 2024, not only deepened the humanitarian crisis but also escalated regional tensions, threatening global energy and maritime security. In this atmosphere, the U.S. launched a diplomatic offensive aimed at achieving a political victory withdrawal (Exit Strategy), allowing it to redirect resources and time spent on military operations toward competition with China and Russia. The Core Reason: The conflict risked freezing the potential normalization between Saudi Arabia and Israel, and the rapid shift of the Middle East toward the Iran/Proxy Network’s sphere of control.

Participating Nations and Leaders: The Actors at the Table

The summit was attended by 27 countries, including the U.S. (President Trump), Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Palestine (Mahmoud Abbas), Saudi Arabia, Jordan, the UAE, and Bahrain.

Critical Detail: Israel's Strategic Evasion

The most notable strategic point of the summit was the absence of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu; Israel was represented only at the "observer" level. The non-invitation of Hamas also created the biggest question mark regarding the declaration's legitimacy on the ground.

Strategic Reading: Israel’s presence solely as an observer not only overshadows the Declaration's legitimacy but also allows Israel to legally disassociate itself from political concessions made at the table while utilizing the security guarantees received from the U.S. This is a diplomatic evasion that recalls Henry Kissinger's principle of "constructive ambiguity."

The Trump Doctrine: The Three-Pillar Structural Transformation of Gaza

The Trump Declaration is more than just a ceasefire document; it is a structural framework the U.S. intends to leave behind as it draws down its presence. This doctrinal framework rests on three fundamental and interconnected pillars:

1. Cessation of Hostilities and Disarmament Obligation (The Security Pillar): The imperative for Hamas to undergo disarmament under international supervision, and the establishment of a New Joint Mechanism involving Egypt, Turkey, and the U.S. to secure the Gaza border.

2. Humanitarian Aid and Reconstruction Fund (The Financial Geopolitics Pillar): The creation of a new “Gaza Reconstruction Fund,” led by Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt, with strong financial backing from Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

3. Political Solution Roadmap and UN Goal (The Diplomatic Pillar): Setting the target for a UN vote on the recognition of a Palestinian State in the first half of 2026.

Global Politics: Fracture Points and Critical Repercussions

Europe’s Role: Political Actor or Financial Enabler?

The signing of the declaration by European countries indicates that the EU, rather than being an active political force in the Middle East, has reconciled itself to the role of a financial and legitimacy backer of the U.S. diplomatic initiative. The EU shoulders the "burden-sharing" role of the political solution roadmap while ceding the strategic direction to the U.S.

The Hamas Paradox: The Sustainability Issue

Realist Threat: The Declaration's greatest strategic flaw is the absence of Hamas. This risks turning the agreement into a “Regional Tanzimat Edict,” excluding Gaza's primary political actor. Without securing political legitimacy on the ground, the permanence of this peace is doomed to remain on paper.

Strategic Analysis: The Geopolitical Architects and Risks of the Declaration

The resulting situation points to a new and complex balance of power. This is the intersection of the U.S.'s diplomatic comeback and the rise of regional actors like Turkey and Qatar.

The U.S. Role: The Trump administration gained a diplomatic victory but risks bearing full responsibility should the Declaration fail. Israel’s Position: Israel secured strong security guarantees from the U.S. but faces the risk of being forced toward a political solution. The Turkey and Qatar Axis: Having gained power through mediation, they risk straining relations with Palestinian actors due to the disarmament process, while facing the threat of a U.S. "reputation assassination." The Arab Bloc: Countries like Saudi Arabia and the UAE have gained legitimacy by seemingly securing a Palestinian State promise but risk losing public support if the process fails. The European Union (EU): The EU has conceded political initiative but aims to prevent regional instability from spreading to Europe through financial support. The Palestinian Authority: It risks losing legitimacy by participating in an agreement that excludes Hamas.

Turkey’s Strategic Gain and Dilemma

Turkey's guarantor status is a concrete success of Ankara's "Multifaceted and Enterprising Diplomacy" strategy. However, this compels Turkey into pragmatic cooperation with Israel. Turkey will use its Gaza guarantor role as leverage against the U.S. regarding its Syria strategy. Ankara will demand not a power-sharing arrangement, but that the U.S. cease support for the YPG/PKK, thereby seeking the implicit recognition of the permanent status of Turkish-controlled zones to achieve a "Turkey without Terrorism." This means solidifying its national sovereignty sphere.

International Policy Projection: The Historical Position of the 2025 Declaration

The “2025 Gaza Peace Summit” is not merely a ceasefire document; it is a turning point that redefines the U.S.'s role in the region. The Declaration signals the U.S.'s shift from an era of "direct intervention" to one of "proxy guarantees" in the Middle East. This process is documented as a move to delegate security burdens to regional powers like Turkey and Egypt, enabling the U.S. to focus its energy on the Great Power Competition (China and Russia).

The most critical geopolitical objective of this Declaration is to finance the U.S. goal of encircling Iran and shifting focus to China. To this end, the U.S. is expected to tacitly enable Israel's actions that normalize abnormal behavior (such as settlement policies) by turning a blind eye to its "Promised Land" rhetoric. Despite this, the U.S. will simultaneously be forced to pressure Netanyahu not to block the UN vote on the Palestinian State. (The UN Vote: Refers to the critical diplomatic process in the UN Security Council to recognize Palestine as a full member state. The U.S. must prevent Israel from sabotaging this vote for the sake of larger strategic interests.)

CONCLUSION and Realist Future Projection: The Fragile Architecture of the New Order

The “2025 Gaza Peace Summit” is neither a moral peace treaty nor a complete diplomatic failure, but a platform where power politics is re-staged. The ultimate motivation for all actors is not ideology, but security and influence gain.

The key outcomes and projections of this fragile order are:

• The U.S.'s Global Balancing Act and Reputation Management: The Declaration's core purpose is to prevent the global struggle against Russia and China from being derailed by the Middle East conflict. The U.S. has attempted to mitigate the reputational damage it suffered globally due to its support for Israel. Through the Trump Doctrine, the U.S. has established itself as the founder and manager of a new structural system, intending to allocate resources to the "commercial and technological war" with China without further large-scale investment in the region. The U.S. aims to gain the title of the state that "saved the world from great chaos" while maintaining its shadow over the Middle East.

• Israel: It gained international support for Hamas's disarmament but was forced to temporarily freeze its ideological "Promised Land" goals for regional normalization. U.S. pressure will limit Israel's room for maneuver.

• The Arab Bloc and the EU: Arab countries secured a diplomatic gain with the promise of a Palestinian State. The EU largely lost political initiative but achieved its goal of preventing regional instability from spreading to Europe through its financial support role.

• Turkey: Turkey has maximized its regional influence through mediation and gained a strong bargaining chip to legitimize its security zone in Syria using its Gaza guarantor role.

Realist Forecast: The agreement will not bring lasting peace unless Hamas's disarmament is realized; however, it may secure a temporary, long-term ceasefire due to pressure from regional powers. The real battle is not over the commitments on paper, but how much the balance of power on the ground will truly shift.