By Charbel A. Antoun

The Sharm el Sheikh peace summit in October 2025 marked a dramatic turn in the Gaza war. Hostages were exchanged, Israeli forces partially withdrew, and international leaders gathered under U.S. sponsorship—then Donald Trump declared the conflict “over.” For a region accustomed to endless cycles of violence, the optics were striking. But the real test isn’t the ceasefire itself; it’s whether this fragile pause can evolve into a durable peace.

From Oslo to Sharm: Ending process without progress

For more than three decades, American diplomacy has run in circles: Oslo, Camp David, Annapolis, Kerry’s shuttle diplomacy. Each produced frameworks: none delivered statehood or lasting security. Trump’s approach is different: pressure-based, personality-driven, relentlessly focused on visible results. By bypassing bureaucracies and driving leader-to-leader bargaining, he broke the cycle of process without progress. Sharm was the culmination of that style. Now comes the hard part: translating optics into outcomes.

The three empty chairs: Netanyahu, Hamas, and Iran

Peace enforcement is tougher than peace announcements. Three conspicuously absent actors cast the longest shadows: Benjamin Netanyahu, Hamas, and Iran. Each opposed Oslo; each still opposes Palestinian statehood today. Unless they are confronted directly and systematically, the ceasefire will remain brittle.

Netanyahu’s dilemma

Netanyahu has resisted Palestinian statehood since the mid‑1990s and, critics argue, has benefited politically from Hamas as a foil. For Trump’s plan to advance, Netanyahu must either deliver on the peace framework or step aside. Washington’s leverage—diplomatic, economic, and military—will be decisive in forcing that choice.

Hamas’ grip and Macron’s warning

Hamas rejected Oslo and now rejects the Sharm framework. Despite battlefield losses, it remains entrenched in Gaza with thousands of fighters, tunnels, and weapons. On October 15, 2025, U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) Commander Admiral Brad Cooper urged Hamas to cease violence and disarm without delay, calling this an “historic opportunity for peace” and pressing adherence to a 20‑point plan—including stopping fire on Palestinian civilians. French President Emmanuel Macron, speaking after the summit, warned: “The coming weeks and months will witness terrorist attacks and destabilization… You cannot dismantle a terrorist group with thousands of fighters, tunnels, and this kind of weaponry overnight.” His call for strict international oversight is essential. Arab mediators—Qatar, Turkey, and Egypt—must press Hamas to disarm and end its stranglehold on civilians or Gaza risks sliding back into armed resistance.

Iran’s shadow over the region

Tehran declined its invitation to the Peace Summit, underscoring its isolation—and its disruptive power. Iranian officials dismissed the ceasefire, while proxies from Hezbollah to the Houthis echoed that skepticism; the Houthis even warned they would continue to “back up” Palestinians if Israel failed to comply. Without coordinated U.S.–EU–Saudi pressure to blunt Iran’s proxy network, the ceasefire could unravel. Notably, in its list of hostages to be released from Israel, Hamas did not include any names from Hezbollah’s hostages taken during Hezbollah’s disastrous war supporting Hamas—evidence that Iran’s vaunted “unity of arenas” is fraying.

Learning from Oslo’s collapse: Structural change or repeated failure

Oslo’s lesson is sobering. Both Hamas and Netanyahu opposed it, and their combined resistance helped doom Palestinian statehood. The same dynamic could be repeated unless structures change:

• Replace Hamas: As soon as feasible, transfer authority in Gaza to a reformed Palestinian Authority capable of governing both Gaza and the West Bank. However, reforming the PA is mandatory and urgent.
• Recenter Israeli politics: Netanyahu must pivot to a centrist coalition willing to implement the framework—or be replaced by Israeli voters.
• Contain Iran’s malign influence: Sustain coordinated international pressure to reduce the reach and resupply of Iranian proxies.

Without these shifts, today’s ceasefire is tomorrow’s collapse.

The hardest phase ahead: Enforcement, disarmament, and rebuilding legitimacy

The ceasefire was the easy part. The second phase—enforcement, disarmament, and political restructuring—will determine whether Sharm becomes another false dawn or the foundation of a new Middle East.

• Enforcement: International monitoring, verifiable compliance, and swift consequences for violations.
• Disarmament: Sequenced steps, external guarantees, and clear pathways for demobilization.
• Legitimacy: Reconstituted Palestinian governance, credible Israeli political will, and regional buy‑in—including rigorous constraints on Iran’s proxies.

Trump has broken the circle of failed U.S. diplomacy—pressure, personality, and pragmatism produced a ceasefire. Now he must prove they can build peace. If he succeeds, the reward will be more than optics—or prizes. It will be a region finally stepping out of history’s loop and into a future that holds.