Washington | July 1 (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump has announced what he calls a “final proposal” for a 60-day in Gaza ceasefire, urging Hamas to accept the terms already approved by Israel. This move, delivered through diplomatic channels in Qatar and Egypt, comes amid heightened tensions in the Middle East following coordinated U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites.
Trump made the announcement via social media on Tuesday, emphasizing that his representatives had a “long and productive” meeting with Israeli officials regarding the Gaza ceasefire. Though Trump didn’t specify the names, key American figures, U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Vice President JD Vance, were slated to meet with Ron Dermer, a senior adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
A Gaza Ceasefire Deal on the Table: Trump’s Strategic Framing
Trump asserted that Israel has agreed to the Gaza ceasefire conditions and is prepared to observe a 60-day cessation of hostilities in Gaza, during which time all parties would work toward ending the war. Qatar and Egypt have been tasked with delivering the deal to Hamas leadership. Trump warned that the deal represents Hamas’s best opportunity, stating, “It will not get better — it will only get worse.”
Earlier in the day, Trump expressed optimism about reaching a Gaza ceasefire -for-hostages agreement by next week, noting he would meet Netanyahu at the White House on Monday to finalize further steps. Trump’s messaging continues to depict Hamas as an “Iran-backed” militant group, subtly drawing Tehran deeper into the Gaza conflict narrative.
The core U.S. proposal includes not only a 60-day Gaza ceasefire, but also the release of half the Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners and the remains of Palestinians killed in Israeli strikes. Israel’s Foreign Minister Gideon Saar confirmed Israel’s approval of this plan, pushing the onus on Hamas to comply.
Tehran’s Calculated Silence: Strategic or Tactical?
Despite being openly referenced by Trump and indirectly implicated in recent Israeli and U.S. military actions, Iran has not publicly responded to the Gaza ceasefire proposal. This strategic ambiguity suggests a calculated approach by Tehran, especially following limited military strikes on its nuclear infrastructure. By staying silent, Iran may be recalibrating its deterrence posture without escalating directly.
This quiet diplomacy likely serves multiple purposes. First, Iran avoids overt confrontation while signaling its influence over Hamas and other regional proxies. Second, it leaves room for plausible deniability should Hamas reject the deal. Finally, Iran’s silence might reflect a wait-and-watch strategy ahead of the high-stakes Trump-Netanyahu meeting.
Iran’s lack of direct reaction does not imply disengagement. Instead, the Islamic Republic appears to be leveraging its proxies more strategically, choosing timing and media silence as tools of deterrence. With South Asia watching closely, especially Pakistan, Iran’s role remains deeply relevant not just for border stability but also for regional energy diplomacy and preventing another proxy war spillover.
Performative Peace or Real Resolution? Trump’s Deal Under Scrutiny
While Trump’s initiative presents itself as a step toward peace, critics argue the move is more performative than pragmatic. The language, “Israel agrees, Hamas must follow”, resonates well in the West but fails to engage with the core Palestinian demands, including the right of return, end of blockade, and nationhood.
Analysts speculate that the push for a final proposal may be aimed as much at securing Trump’s legacy perhaps even a Nobel Peace Prize nod, as at genuinely resolving the conflict. Moreover, the recent Gaza ceasefire in the Iran-Israel skirmish is being used as diplomatic momentum, even though that situation remains fragile and unresolved.
Meanwhile, the Gaza humanitarian crisis continues to worsen. Since October 7, 2023, when Hamas-led militants launched a deadly attack on Israel, the Israeli military response has claimed over 56,000 Palestinian lives, displaced nearly the entire population of Gaza, and drawn accusations of genocide at the International Court of Justice and war crimes charges at the International Criminal Court. Israel has strongly denied all such allegations.
Yet, the conflicting stances remain entrenched. While Hamas demands a complete end to the war in exchange for releasing the remaining hostages, Israel insists on the complete disarmament and dismantling of Hamas, a non-starter for the militant group.
Conclusion: Ceasefire, Not Settlement
In summary, Trump’s proposed 60-day Gaza ceasefire may offer temporary relief, but it is far from a comprehensive resolution. Without addressing the political roots of the conflict, including Hamas’s political future, Palestinian statehood, and Iran’s regional leverage, the deal risks becoming another short-term pause rather than a genuine path to peace.
Iran’s silence remains a powerful statement, not of indifference but of deliberate calculation. In the broader Middle Eastern theater, where optics often outweigh outcomes, Tehran’s strategic ambiguity keeps its adversaries guessing while its allies watch for quiet signals.
Ultimately, the success of Trump’s “final proposal” will depend not only on Hamas’s next move, but also on how effectively the U.S. can balance Israeli security, Palestinian dignity, and regional stability in a region where every ceasefire in Gaza risks turning into another stalemate.
