US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff's arrival for proximity negotiations in Doha will determine the fate of Israel-Hamas talks. The outcome – whether breakthrough or breakdown – may become clear by Thursday or Friday at the latest.
Wednesday's reports from Doha revealed intensive negotiations marred by substantial disagreements between the parties, particularly regarding the Morag Axis that divides Rafah from Khan Younis. Israel demands continued presence in the corridor; Hamas requires complete Israeli withdrawal. The strategic value of the Axis itself pales compared to its symbolic importance, as Israel plans to construct the proposed refugee city on Rafah's ruins to house hundreds of thousands of Palestinians.
Witkoff's lengthy journey from Washington to Doha suggests genuine optimism about resolving the impasse and achieving agreement. Historical precedent demonstrates his results-oriented approach rather than mere diplomatic theater. His shuttle diplomacy between Doha and Jerusalem in January established crucial momentum for the previous agreement. Similar dynamics may emerge now, particularly with Netanyahu in Washington facing sustained pressure from President Trump and senior administration officials.
Claims of excessive American pressure on Israel deserve preemptive dismissal. Following the Iran campaign, Trump requires no validation of his credentials – Israel's government must demonstrate commitment to hostage recovery. The Morag Axis never constituted an existential anchor, and its security significance remains limited. Beit Hanoun's control, for instance, offers exponentially greater protection for northern Gaza border communities. The Morag Axis represents primarily symbolic value – signaling to government hawks that hostilities continue and voluntary migration plans remain viable. As a stepping stone toward promised decisive victory, it has proven insufficient.
Potential Iranian escalation
Netanyahu will likely propose an even more comprehensive and complex deal to coalition partners. His argument will emphasize three critical reasons why Israel cannot afford confrontation with the United States at this juncture – preserving pathways for future Gaza victory, maintaining opportunities for Abraham Accords expansion, and most importantly, preparing for possible renewed Iranian military engagement. American media indicates this topic featured prominently in weekly Trump-Netanyahu discussions, with the latter identifying a current strategic window for renewed Iranian strikes and potential regime destabilization.
Setting aside momentary cynicism – Netanyahu declared Iran's defeat and nuclear program's termination merely two weeks ago. "I promised Iran's nuclear facilities would be destroyed; I fulfilled that promise," he stated. The contradiction demands attention. If Iran sustained reported damage, why contemplate additional strikes. If damage proved less severe than claimed, why cease operations before achieving all objectives and why withhold accurate public reporting.
The answer, characteristically, lies in specifics. Trump and Netanyahu hastily proclaimed victory and destruction, each driven by political calculations. Intelligence agencies requested postponement of final assessments pending comprehensive damage evaluation. Current intelligence may reveal the situation's complexity transcends simple binary outcomes, requiring renewed decision-making. Similar to previous strike preparations, the United States likely favors diplomatic engagement while Israel seeks to capitalize on decisive military superiority through missile diplomacy.
International legitimacy crisis
A less publicly discussed but critically important consideration for policymakers concerns Israel's international standing, which has reached unprecedented lows with depleted legitimacy reserves for Gaza operations. Negotiation collapse and subsequent fighting intensification (particularly if Rafah operations commence) guarantee unprecedented sanctions and boycotts. Conversely, agreements producing temporary calm would alleviate some pressure. With Israeli public support for continued warfare also declining and solid majorities favoring hostage-recovery agreements, Netanyahu must moderate his opposition – even risking coalition "crises" from partners lacking viable alternatives.
