Imagine the Middle East as a chessboard where Israel and Hamas stand poised for confrontation, while the United States—the veteran player—finds itself increasingly struggling to make strategic moves. Once the dominant mediator capable of shaping outcomes, America now sometimes finds its moves ignored by the very "pieces" it seeks to influence. How has U.S. influence in the region evolved, and where is this geopolitical chess game headed?

Today, we examine America's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict, tracing its shifting strategies, current challenges, and potential future directions.

Trump's "Iron Fist" vs. Biden's "Gentle Touch": Different Approaches, Similar Outcomes?

During the Trump administration, U.S. policy toward Hamas and Iran was notably hardline, characterized by a "maximum pressure" strategy. This approach severely constrained Hamas economically and militarily. Simultaneously, the Trump administration brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states. While the accords represented progress, critics argued they overlooked Palestinian grievances, potentially exacerbating tensions.

The Biden administration marked a shift in tone. While maintaining support for Israel, Biden emphasized diplomatic solutions, addressing humanitarian crises in Gaza while repairing relations with Arab nations. This multilateral approach contrasted sharply with Trump's unilateralism.

Despite their differences, both administrations demonstrated rare unity in supporting the January 2025 Israel-Hamas ceasefire agreement. This convergence raises questions about whether America's influence in the region is genuinely diminishing.

America's Declining Leverage: What Netanyahu's Indifference Reveals

As former National Intelligence Council Chair Gregory Treverton observed, despite unprecedented U.S. pressure on Hamas and Iran's growing distance from the group, American diplomatic efforts remain fraught with challenges. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's frequent disregard for U.S. advice underscores this reality.

This dynamic signals a broader trend: America's once-unquestioned dominance in Middle Eastern affairs has waned as regional actors prioritize their own interests and explore alternative alliances. Netanyahu's indifference exemplifies this shift.

The 2025 Ceasefire: A Test of American Mediation

The January 2025 ceasefire agreement represented both a compromise between Israel and Hamas and a test of America's mediating role. The agreement's implementation remains precarious, particularly without robust international monitoring mechanisms to ensure compliance.

Nevertheless, the Biden administration's efforts offer a glimmer of hope. Despite domestic and international pressures, America continues to pursue its traditional mediating role—albeit with diminished authority.

Looking Ahead: Can America Regain Its Footing?

As Middle Eastern geopolitics continue to evolve, America's role in the Israel-Hamas conflict remains uncertain. U.S. policy must adapt to new challenges while accounting for shifting public opinion and international expectations.

Key adjustments could include:

• More Balanced Policies: Greater attention to Palestinian rights could help rebuild trust with Arab nations and create conditions for meaningful peace talks.
• More Effective Diplomacy: Strengthening regional dialogue and multilateral cooperation could enhance America's credibility as an honest broker.
• Clearer Strategic Vision: A coherent long-term strategy could help the U.S. avoid entanglements while protecting its interests.

Public Opinion: What Role Do Americans Want?

Ultimately, U.S. foreign policy must serve American interests—and public sentiment matters. According to an October 2024 Pew Research Center survey, 61% of Americans support U.S. mediation in the Israel-Hamas conflict, with particularly strong backing among younger voters and Democrats.

While partisan divisions persist regarding Israel, growing concern for humanitarian crises and America's global role may be driving a reassessment of Middle East policy.

The Crucial Role of International Monitoring

The success of the 2025 ceasefire hinges on effective international oversight. Without robust monitoring, the agreement risks collapse. Treverton argues that implementation requires broader international involvement beyond the U.S., Egypt, and Qatar to ensure compliance.

Key considerations for establishing such mechanisms include:

• Learning from Past Successes: The Colombian peace process offers valuable lessons about verification and confidence-building.
• Overcoming Challenges: Deep-seated distrust and geopolitical rivalries complicate monitoring efforts.
• Incorporating Gender Perspectives: Women's participation enhances peacebuilding effectiveness.
• Strengthening Multilateral Cooperation: Collective international support could bolster compliance.

Regional Players: Iran and Saudi Arabia's Growing Influence

Beyond U.S. involvement, regional powers like Iran and Saudi Arabia significantly shape the conflict's trajectory. Iran's support for Hamas—including weapons and funding—bolsters the group's military capacity. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia seeks to balance its warming ties with Israel against domestic and regional pressures to support Palestinian rights.

New Contenders: China and Russia Enter the Fray

China and Russia's expanding Middle Eastern presence further complicates America's position. Through economic investments and diplomatic initiatives like the Iran-Saudi reconciliation, China has emerged as an alternative power broker. Russia, via its Syrian intervention and ties with Iran, has also regained regional influence.

America's Path Forward: Recalibrating Middle East Strategy

In this changing landscape, America must reassess its approach. Balancing support for Israel with recognition of Palestinian rights, while navigating competition from China and Russia, presents complex challenges. Future peace efforts will require not just American leadership but broader regional cooperation.

The Middle Eastern chessboard has grown more crowded, and America can no longer assume it will always control the game. Adapting to this new reality—while preserving core interests—may define U.S. policy in the region for years to come.