Aaron David Miller on Trump’s Ceasefire Leverage: A New Playbook for Israel and Gaza?
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from December 3, 2025 | Israel Update: Trump’s Plan – Breakthrough or Breakdown. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, veteran Middle East negotiator Aaron David Miller—a longtime U.S. diplomat who played a key role during the Oslo era—joined host Madeleine Brand to examine how the Trump administration approached the Israel–Hamas ceasefire and what it signals about the future of U.S. mediation. Their conversation explored a central question: did President Trump succeed by using a fundamentally different negotiating playbook, and if so, can it be replicated elsewhere?
A “Leverage-First” Strategy That Delivered Results
Miller began by acknowledging a political reality that can be hard to say out loud: whatever one thinks of Trump’s broader conduct, the ceasefire produced tangible outcomes. In Miller’s view, Trump achieved two immediate results that predecessors struggled to deliver—ending the kind of full-scale war Israel and Hamas had been fighting since October 7, and securing the release of living hostages alongside the return of remains of others.
For Miller, the most striking feature wasn’t simply the deal itself, but the pressure behind it. He argued that Trump delivered a clear message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—essentially, sign on, or the U.S. walks away. Miller described this as unusually direct leverage, noting that the last comparable example he could cite was President Dwight Eisenhower, who threatened economic and political consequences during the Suez crisis in 1956–57.
Why Trump Could Pressure Netanyahu When Others Couldn’t
A key theme of the interview was Trump’s political “running room.” Miller argued that Trump operated without the emotional and historical constraints that shaped other presidents’ approaches to Israel. He contrasted Trump with leaders like Bill Clinton and Joe Biden, whom he described as personally and politically invested in Israel’s security and identity in ways that made tougher tactics—like conditioning aid—more difficult to deploy.
Miller also pointed to the U.S. domestic landscape. He noted that Trump commands the Republican Party, which has traditionally been firmly pro-Israel, while many Democrats have become more openly critical of Israeli policy and more willing to discuss conditioning military assistance. That unusual alignment, Miller suggested, gave Trump greater freedom to apply pressure without fear of backlash from his own side.
The Netanyahu Factor: Politics, Vulnerability, and Dependence
Miller framed Netanyahu as uniquely vulnerable to Trump’s leverage—not because Netanyahu lacks power in Israel, but because he needs Trump. He argued that no Israeli prime minister can afford to mishandle the relationship with a U.S. president, and that Trump’s popularity in Israel, combined with his willingness to offer political support, created a dependency Netanyahu could not ignore.
The discussion also touched on whether Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, might pardon Netanyahu—an idea Trump has publicly promoted. Miller was skeptical, describing the legal and political barriers to a pre-conviction pardon and noting that any conditional arrangement—such as stepping away from politics—runs directly against Netanyahu’s core objective: staying in power and winning the next election.
Why the Same Approach Fails With Putin
Brand asked why Trump’s pressure appeared more effective with Netanyahu than with Vladimir Putin regarding Ukraine. Miller’s answer was blunt: Russia is not Israel. Putin presides over a nuclear-armed state with far greater capacity to absorb costs and keep fighting. Miller characterized Trump as seeking short-term “fixes”—a ceasefire rather than a durable settlement—without committing to the kind of long-term alliance-building and security guarantees that would make peace stick.
In other words, leverage works differently when the other party doesn’t need you as much—or when they can outlast you.
A Ceasefire Is Not the End of the Story
While Miller credited the ceasefire’s immediate impact, he cautioned that the durability of the deal depends on what comes next. The real test, he suggested, is whether Trump will be as tough in later phases as he was in securing the initial agreement—especially if political incentives shift.
The interview’s takeaway was less a celebration than a diagnosis: diplomacy still turns on power, politics, and timing. Trump’s approach may represent a new playbook—but whether it can build something lasting remains an open question.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.