By Al-Fassel | 2025-10-22

President Donald Trump's intervention brought an end to the devastating Gaza conflict, securing a ceasefire that even Hamas officials acknowledge would have been impossible without US leadership.

Signed October 13 at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt after US-brokered negotiations, the agreement formalized the halt in fighting and opened the door to wider regional talks.

The breakthrough stands in stark contrast to the Iranian regime's role in fueling the violence that produced one of the region's worst humanitarian crises, regional analysts told Al-Fassel.

Senior Hamas official Basem Naim publicly credited the president's involvement as decisive in achieving peace.

"Without the personal interference of President Trump in this case, I don't think that it would have happened to have reached the end of the war," Naim said in an exclusive interview with Sky News.

While the United States worked to end the violence and save lives, Tehran's extensive support network for Hamas directly enabled the conflict's devastating toll, the analysts said.

Iran provided funding, weapons, and training to the armed group—resources that transformed Gaza into a battlefield where Palestinian civilians bore the heaviest cost.

The regime's regional proxies, from Hizbullah in Lebanon to the Houthis in Yemen, fanned the flames through drone and rocket attacks on multiple fronts, threatening to widen the conflict.

The aim, the analysts said, was to entrench Tehran's influence and demonstrate its reach across multiple battlefields.

Regime's duplicity

Tehran's role in the conflict laid bare the gap between its rhetoric and reality, between public vows of solidarity with Palestinians and actions driven by self-interest.

Iranian officials have long proclaimed themselves "defenders of the Palestinian cause," yet their proxy interventions tell another story.

Rather than alleviating hardship, Tehran's involvement deepened it, turning a people's struggle into an instrument of regional ambition.

As US diplomats pushed relentlessly to broker a ceasefire, Iran kept the war machine running, supplying the weapons and resources that sustained the fighting, the analysts noted.

Hamas's public acknowledgment of US leadership inadvertently exposed the emptiness of Tehran's posturing. The group thanked the nation working to end the war, not the patron whose backing had fueled it.

The ceasefire marked more than a pause in hostilities; it underscored the difference between genuine diplomacy and demagoguery.

The United States' engagement aimed to end suffering and pave the way for reconstruction.

Iran's involvement ensured that suffering would continue—because conflict, for the regime, is the currency of relevance.

In the end, as the analysts put it, while Tehran supplied the weapons that destroyed Gaza, Washington supplied the diplomacy that stopped the destruction.