On the second anniversary of the October 7 attacks, The Fulcrum spoke with Benjamin Radd, Senior Fellow at the Merkle Center for International Relations at UCLA, political scientist, and faculty member at the UCLA School of Law. In a conversation from Los Angeles, Radd analyzed President Trump’s latest peace proposal for Gaza, the mounting pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the divisions inside Hamas as both sides weigh a ceasefire. He also discussed the shifting role of Congress and the influence of business interests in Trump’s diplomacy.
How realistic is President Trump’s proposed peace plan, given the current positions of both Hamas and Israel regarding peace in Gaza?
Let’s start with the Israeli side. There is immense pressure from the hostage families and from many Israelis who are eager for the war to end. For them, the main goal is not necessarily the destruction of Hamas but the release of the hostages and the end of the war.
The public would like to see Hamas stop being a threat, but that does not require the level of military action against Gaza that Netanyahu and his cabinet have been pursuing. Domestic pressure is likely to push him to accept the deal as Trump has proposed it, and Netanyahu has already indicated he is willing to do so.
And what about Hamas?
The deal, as it stands, is essentially a suicide pact for them. It calls for the end of their movement and organization at a time when there is no guarantee of a future Palestinian state. That makes it deeply problematic.
These factors make it difficult, though not impossible, for Hamas to agree. The Wall Street Journal reported this week about serious internal divisions within Hamas over whether to accept the terms. Those divisions are real, and the group as a whole does not yet know what it wants to do.
From the U.S. perspective, how would you describe President Trump’s current approach, and in what ways does it differ from the Biden administration’s policy?
It is extremely forceful, aggressive, and persuasive. He is using a mix of diplomacy and his own personal relationships with leaders, including Arab leaders who are now being brought in as supporting players.
But perhaps the most distinctive element is the business side. Trump is willing to do what most presidents would not because it would normally be considered unethical. He turns diplomacy into an opportunity for business and real estate deals.
What kinds of business opportunities are involved in this approach?
You can see this with the crypto fund connected to Trump, his family, and his advisers, and with his son-in-law Jared Kushner’s investments involving Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. This mix creates a unique chemistry that allows deals to happen when they otherwise would not, because the deals serve not only state interests but also private financial interests of several leaders.
Money talks. It is an incentive, and it has an effect. That is part of the calculus. You can get countries to come along if they see a profit in it. It is cynical, but it is real.
In this context, under Trump, how is Congress shaping or constraining his stance on Israel and Hamas?
The United States has traditionally been very supportive of Israel, but now we are seeing cracks in that consensus. Many progressive Democrats and even some moderate Democrats are under pressure from voters back home who do not want to see the U.S. unconditionally supporting Israel’s war effort.
People are seeing horrific images on their screens every day, and it is forcing Washington to justify its position. In the past, the U.S. did not have to explain its support for Israel. Now it does.
Where is the pushback in Congress coming from?
It comes from both extremes, from the right with figures like Marjorie Taylor Greene, and from the left with the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Some simply do not think this is the right approach.
So Congress today plays a less supportive role than in the past. So far it has not interfered directly, but that is because the pressure has not reached a breaking point. The leadership in both houses still backs Israel, and that has allowed Trump’s administration to move ahead. But if those leaders start to hesitate, policy could shift very quickly.
Does the current position in Congress reflect public opinion? And how are universities, advocacy groups, and civil society movements influencing this debate?
These movements are having a real impact from the bottom up. Student protests and social movements are forcing the administration and members of Congress to justify their positions.
They are making people speak up about what they believe and, frankly, making some members of Congress who take pro-Israel positions uncomfortable. These grassroots movements are influencing the tone of the national debate.
What role are regional actors such as Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf states playing in shaping U.S. decisions?
They are not influencing it much. Under President Trump, he is essentially doing what he believes is right or what his closest advisers recommend, and other countries are following his lead.
He is not the kind of president who yields to pressure from Egypt or Jordan. It is a bit different with Saudi Arabia or Qatar, where there are more overlapping interests, especially economic ones. The business dimension matters enormously here. Those relationships have a strong influence on how Trump sees and manages the Israel–Palestine situation.
What risks does the U.S. face to its credibility and influence in the Middle East under Trump’s leadership? And how are Arab countries reacting to this more aggressive stance?
Right now the dynamic is, who wants to be the country that disappoints Donald Trump? No one wants that.
The pressure on all sides is intense. But if credibility is ever called into question, if one side or the other refuses to follow through with the deal, the consequences for that side will likely be worse than any credibility loss for the United States.
The reason is simple. There is no other country that can do what the U.S. does in this context. If the U.S. loses credibility, there is no viable alternative power to take its place.
So any loss of credibility would probably fall on Netanyahu, who is already under heavy international pressure. If he is seen as disappointing Donald Trump, that would be politically devastating for him.
This remains a very fluid situation that changes almost daily. Looking ahead, what scenarios are most likely for U.S. engagement in the next year, and how might the conflict evolve by the end of 2025?
Honestly, I do not think anyone can predict, and I do not think anyone should.
If someone tries to, they are ignoring the history and unpredictability of this region. I did not think Trump would be able to present an offer like this. I did not think Hamas would even consider it. Yet I have been surprised on both counts.
The next week will tell us a lot about the direction things will go. We need to let the dynamics of the offer play out and see the response before drawing conclusions. But I am not going to attempt a prediction. It is simply too uncertain.
Finally, is there anything else you believe observers should be paying attention to?
The main thing to watch now is whether Iran plays the role of spoiler, in two possible ways. Either by interfering to make the deal fail, or by provoking a new Israeli strike that undermines the process.
We do not know how that will play out yet, but that is what I am watching most closely.
Alex Segura is a bilingual, multiple-platform journalist based in Southern California.
