The Future of the Middle East After the Gaza Ceasefire: Political Outlook

The Israel–HAMAS war, which began on October 7, 2023, is a devastating conflict between Israel and HAMAS-led Palestinian militant groups. It started with a large-scale attack by Palestinian militants, causing 1,195 deaths, mostly civilians. Israel responded with airstrikes and a ground invasion. By January 8, 2025, over 47,000 people had died, including 45,936 Palestinians and 1,706 Israelis, with the death toll of Palestinians disputed. A ceasefire was agreed upon on January 15, 2025, and went into effect on January 19, including an armistice and the exchange of hostages.

The conflict spurred global diplomatic efforts, protests, and humanitarian aid. Egypt and Jordan opposed Palestinian refugee resettlement, Qatar mediated agreements, and Iraq remained neutral. Iran supported HAMAS with weapons, heightening tensions and leading to clashes with Israeli proxies like Hezbollah and Houthis.

The US strongly supported Israel, offering military aid and condemning HAMAS while balancing calls for humanitarian aid to Gaza. The US faced criticism for not pushing harder for a ceasefire and its stance on Gaza’s blockade.

Last time Wyoming Star spoke with Ragui Assaad, an Egyptian economist and Professor of Planning and Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota, to get a better understanding of the economic side of the conflict.

This time we want to explore the political side of the Israel-HAMAS war and the future of the region after the Gaza ceasefire. We interviewed Lindsay Benstead, a Professor of Politics and Global Studies at Portland State University and Director of the Middle East Studies Center.

Wyoming Star: Do you see the Gaza ceasefire as a genuine step towards normalization between Israel and Palestine or just a short pause before another round of hostilities?

Prof. Benstead: The ceasefire is one more step in the transition from the status quo that existed on October 6, 2023, to a post-war reality. President Trump has said that Israel has to be able to defend itself, and this is at odds with HAMAS continuing to govern the Gaza Strip. The ceasefire seems certain to break down because Israel cannot tolerate HAMAS remaining in power, and we have already seen violations of the ceasefire agreement by HAMAS. We do not yet know what Gaza will look like in the coming months and years in terms of the reconstruction of its physical infrastructure and its governance. There are several possibilities, but it is likely that this process will be a long one.

Wyoming Star: What possible guarantees could Israel have received from the US to accept the ceasefire, considering Israeli domination on the battlefield?

Prof. Benstead: I am not aware of any explicit guarantees, though this is not to say that they do not exist. However, what is clear is that President Trump stated that Israel has the right to defend itself, and this is at odds with a HAMAS-led government in Gaza. The Israeli government was reluctant to make a ceasefire deal early on, with some of its leaders arguing that once Israel stopped fighting in Gaza, the international community (including the Biden administration) might prevent it from resuming.

Under the Trump administration, Israeli leaders believe that the ceasefire does not preclude them from restarting the war if the ceasefire breaks down.

The change in administration in the US had a strong influence on creating the strategic conditions needed for Israel to agree to the ceasefire. The strategic conditions changed for HAMAS as well and for other regional players, which include Egypt and Qatar. HAMAS will be much more motivated than in the past to make sure that the ceasefire does not break down and that they can advance to later phases.

Wyoming Star: How might the ceasefire influence the broader situation in the region, especially in neighboring countries?

Prof. Benstead: The plight of the Palestinian people, the suffering of the Israeli hostages, and the apparent resilience of HAMAS in the Gaza Strip and, to a lesser extent, in the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) are all factors that push the international community to search for a solution that has been elusive for decades for a variety of reasons. The inability of the Oslo Accords (1993) as a framework to resolve the conflict and the destruction of the infrastructure in the Gaza Strip push the international community to consider possible solutions. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely complex in terms of the number of issues that need to be resolved, including borders, refugees, security, and development. Leaders in the region have different positions on these issues, but many, including in the Abraham Accords signatories like the UAE, favor a future in which HAMAS no longer governs in the Gaza Strip.

Wyoming Star: What is the purpose of the recent Israeli operation in the West Bank during the ceasefire? Can it disrupt the peace process between Israel and Palestine?

Prof. Benstead: Palestinian resistance to Israeli occupation in the West Bank continues. Israeli settlement building in the West Bank and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which some Israelis see as returning to their ancestral homeland of Judea and Samaria, accelerated since 1977.

The presence of Israelis in the West Bank and the Israeli security regime there leads some Palestinians to engage in violent resistance, which Israel responds to with a harsh crackdown.

Wyoming Star: Can we see any further changes in US policy towards the Middle East and Israel considering Donald Trump’s recent statements?

Prof. Benstead: Consider that during the first Trump administration, the US recognized Israeli claims to their ancient homeland in several ways, including by moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights, which Israel argues is needed for its security. Some administration officials support Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank (biblical Judea and Samaria), and it is not inconceivable that US support for this claim could increase during the second Trump administration.

Previously, US government policy was to support a two-state solution, but despite previous US-led negotiations such as Camp David II under President Clinton, a two-state solution was not realized.

It remains to be seen if the current administration would support a two-state solution, particularly in the near term.

Wyoming Star: What role do you see the United Nations or other international organizations playing in fostering political stability in the region moving forward?

Prof. Benstead: The status quo before October 7, 2023 was that UNRWA played a direct role in providing aid to the population in Gaza. The current moment calls into question the future of UNRWA if Israel, the US, and other partners see it as being captured by HAMAS. It is possible that regional partners such as the UAE will play a role in supporting the creation of a new aid regime, which could include the UN, once the reconstruction process begins in Gaza.

Wyoming Star: How do you foresee the ceasefire affecting the reconstruction efforts in Gaza, and what role can international aid play in this process?

Prof. Benstead: The nature and speed of the reconstruction will depend on who governs in Gaza and how Israel, the US, the Arab countries, and others in the international community participate in the process. There is the question of rebuilding the physical infrastructure decimated by the war, as well as the question of governance. The US and the UAE have been in talks for more than six months about both of these issues, including physical rebuilding and replacing the current governance of HAMAS with something else. One possibility would be for the international community or the Abraham Accords countries to provide support for new elections by the Palestinian population. HAMAS was elected in 2006, but elections have not been held since then.

Wyoming Star: Given the current state of affairs, what do you see as the most important steps towards lasting peace in the Middle East?

Prof. Benstead: The Abraham Accords offer significant potential to advance regional peace and prosperity.

The Abraham Accords offer potential not only to normalize relations between Israel and neighboring countries—many of which are Arab countries—but also provide opportunities for those countries participating in them, such as the United Arab Emirates, to participate in fostering a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that gives all people hope for a better future.