Trump's Board of Peace Faces Its First Gaza Test

10 to 15 days. That's the deadline Donald Trump gave Iran to make a deal, warning that "bad things will happen" otherwise.

Trump's second-term flagship initiative, the Board of Peace, has barely gotten off the ground before facing one of the world's most intractable conflicts: Gaza. Can this new institutional approach succeed where decades of international efforts have failed?

A Chaotic Debut

The Board's first meeting painted a stark picture of the challenges ahead. Outside, masked protesters were arrested as they demonstrated against the proceedings. Inside, officials discussed concrete plans for Gaza peace missions, backed by Qatar's pledge of $1 billion in support.

Yet even as diplomats talked peace, violence continued. In the occupied West Bank, a Palestinian-American was killed by Israeli settlers, underscoring how quickly diplomatic progress can be overshadowed by on-the-ground realities.

Meanwhile, Venezuela signed an amnesty law as families await prison releases, showing how different nations grapple with internal conflicts in their own ways.

Why This Approach, Why Now?

Trump's decision to create a formal Board of Peace represents a shift from his first-term Middle East strategy. The Abraham Accords successfully normalized relations between Israel and several Arab nations through economic incentives and diplomatic pressure. But Gaza has changed the calculus entirely.

The current crisis has made it impossible to sidestep the Palestinian question, as Trump did before. His 10-15 day ultimatum to Iran reflects this reality—Tehran's nuclear program and regional influence are now directly tied to the Israel-Palestine conflict in ways that demand immediate attention.

The timing also matters politically. Trump needs early foreign policy wins, and the Middle East offers both high stakes and high visibility. Success here could validate his "peace through strength" doctrine. Failure could define his presidency's international legacy.

Global Skepticism and Hope

International observers are watching with cautious interest. Unlike his first term's more unilateral approach, the Board of Peace suggests institutional continuity—something European allies have long advocated for American Middle East policy.

Yet the shadow of decades of international failure looms large. The UN, EU, and countless peace initiatives have foundered on the same fundamental issues Trump now confronts. What makes this attempt different?

Some point to changed regional dynamics: Arab nations exhausted by proxy conflicts, Israel's security concerns heightened by October 7th, and Palestinians facing unprecedented humanitarian crisis. Others argue these same factors make compromise even harder.