The recent deal aimed at bringing an end to the 15-month-long Gaza war raised a pressing question: who gets the credit for this breakthrough? With tensions high in the Middle East and Washington’s involvement in the region, it's never a simple matter to assign praise. In fact, the situation is more complicated than it might initially seem. Even before the deal had been officially inked and shared with the anxious stakeholders, the issue of credit was already sparking debate.
When President Joe Biden stood in front of the press on Wednesday, announcing the potential resolution to the conflict, the question loomed large. "Who gets credit for this, you or Trump?" a reporter asked as Biden was leaving the White House. Surprised, Biden turned around, half wondering if the question was meant to be a joke. However, it wasn’t a joke, nor was there a clear answer. The reality is that both Biden and Trump played important roles in the deal’s formation—an uncomfortable truth for some, but a truth nonetheless.
The Israel-Palestine conflict has been ongoing for decades, but things reached a boiling point in October 2023, when Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israel, killing over 1,200 people and taking hundreds hostage. The attack sparked a massive military response from Israel, which has caused widespread devastation in Gaza. Palestinians have reported over 46,000 deaths—roughly half of them being women and children—due to the intense airstrikes and ground operations. The situation seemed to spiral out of control, with the entire world watching anxiously.
The deal that was finally announced aims to halt the bloodshed, kicking off with phased actions such as hostage-for-prisoner exchanges and a six-week ceasefire. But this agreement didn’t just appear out of nowhere. It was the result of complex diplomacy between various parties, including Biden’s administration, Trump’s team, and regional partners in Doha. The unique cooperation between Biden and Trump’s camps reflects the complicated political landscape in the U.S., particularly in the midst of an election cycle that played a significant role in delaying the deal.
In the United States, the two camps are traditionally rivals, but they found common ground in this case, working together toward a shared goal. However, the political backdrop—an election year—meant that both sides had competing visions of how peace in the Middle East should look. Key leaders in Gaza were closely monitoring the developments in the U.S. and understood how critical this would be for their own region. The back-and-forth between these two administrations wasn’t just a political chess game; it had real consequences for millions of lives.
Both Biden and Trump were fully invested in the deal, and both sides were eager to take credit. After the announcement, Trump was quick to state that the deal “only happened because of our Historic Victory in November.” He had also been vocal about his intentions to hold Hamas accountable, warning them of severe consequences if the hostages weren’t freed before he took office. Meanwhile, his negotiator, Steve Witkoff, had been active in the region, engaging in his own form of shuttle diplomacy, while Biden’s top Middle East adviser, Brett McGurk, was contributing via speakerphone.
On the other hand, Biden aimed to cast the deal as a result of the framework he had laid out back in May, highlighting the perseverance of his team in bringing the deal to fruition. "Its terms will be implemented mostly by the next administration," Biden said, emphasizing the ongoing collaboration between both teams. Biden’s remarks underlined that the deal wasn’t a single-person achievement but the product of teamwork and persistence.
This situation echoed the Iran hostage crisis of 1981, when the resolution came at the tail end of President Jimmy Carter’s term, just as Ronald Reagan was about to take office. However, there are significant differences in the historical parallels. For example, during the Reagan administration, there was a covert operation led by the Reagan team that complicated Carter's attempts at securing a resolution. Trump’s approach in the Gaza negotiations, however, was characterized by loud threats and his close relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Biden, for his part, acknowledged that the negotiations were among the toughest he had ever experienced. Despite Trump’s insistence that he was the one responsible for the deal’s success, Trump’s envoy, Witkoff, made it clear that McGurk was the one truly driving the discussions. This wasn’t a case of political rivalry being set aside to shake hands and celebrate together; it was a matter of recognizing that the stakes were too high for petty politics. Both administrations had to swallow their egos to ensure that the conflict didn’t escalate further.
With Trump’s inauguration just around the corner, the credit for the agreement became more about preserving legacy and securing a place in history. Biden, who is nearing the end of his first term, likely sees this deal as a capstone to his presidency, while Trump, fresh off his campaign victory, views it as a potential starting point for his second term. Both men are now vying for recognition, but it’s clear that neither acted alone in securing this fragile peace deal.
As the negotiations wrapped up, it became apparent that Trump’s involvement may have played a crucial role in Biden securing his final victory as president. At the same time, Biden’s groundwork laid the foundation for Trump to claim the first major success of his second term. It’s hard to imagine either leader taking much satisfaction in this odd, last-minute twist of fate, but it’s a stark reminder of how international diplomacy often requires compromise—even between political opponents.
In the end, history will be the ultimate judge of how this deal came to fruition and who truly deserves the credit. What’s undeniable is that both Biden and Trump played pivotal roles in shaping the outcome. For now, however, the world can only hope that this agreement will lead to lasting peace in Gaza, ending one of the most destructive conflicts in recent memory.
Login