Echoes of History

We’ve seen this split screen before. 44 years ago, to be precise. In the 1980s, a president I opposed achieved significant foreign policy advances. Could it happen again?

On one side of the screen, a Republican president takes the oath of office at the U.S. Capitol, sworn in to follow a one-term Democrat.

On the other, hostages are freed after 400+ days in captivity at the hands of extremists in the Middle East.

I’ve suspected for some time that this is how things might play out. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a political master and would, I just knew, run the clock down as long as he could on a deal, knowing the incoming US president expected the fighting to be over and denying the outgoing one credit for a deal his team had struggled tirelessly to close.

If you want a fuller understanding of exactly what’s been agreed to in the ceaserfire deal and what comes next, former US Special Envoy for Middle East Peace Frank Lowenstein has done an excellent analysis for the J Street Policy Center.

As the Israeli journalist Ronen Bergman reports in Yediot Ahronot, there is sadly no good reason why this deal could not have been reached months ago. Bergman relates that a senior Israeli official told him that a close read of the deal and its annexes,

“raises questions that kick you in the stomach. You know what’s written there and you know what was written in the previous proposals, the ones that we nearly settled on with Hamas. It’s appalling to think that we could have signed this so long ago…. And it can’t be avoided—coupled with the happiness is the terrible thought that gnaws away at you relentlessly: this bloody price, which has created endless sadness, could have been avoided.”

Accountability for the mistakes of the past will have to wait. The years ahead will bring much-needed investigations and inquiries into what did and did not happen – and why.

Today, my focus is on the joy of Israeli families reunited with their loved ones and on the relief of two million Palestinian civilians who will sleep more quietly tonight, and tomorrow should have greater access to food, medicine and critical supplies.

Today, my focus is also on the future.

In 1981, as a young man confronted with electoral loss and the inauguration of someone I had strongly opposed, I feared the worst. I feared what the new President would mean for the country from his trickle-down economics to his hawkish militarism. (You may have read last week of my deep admiration for Jimmy Carter so, as you can imagine, inauguration day 1981 was almost a day of mourning.)

Ronald Reagan had spent much of the 1970s opposing arms control and efforts at détente with the Soviet Union. He argued the US was falling behind in the nuclear arms race, and he pledged to invest heavily in weapons modernization and missile defense.

My fellow students and I who opposed nuclear arms campaigned loudly and strongly against the Strategic Defense Initiative (the so-called “Star Wars” program) and other military spending. We worried Reagan would lead us into World War III.

Yet, ultimately, President Reagan instead led the way to breakthroughs that reshaped US-Soviet relations and ushered in meaningful progress on nuclear arms control.

With the benefit of hindsight and life experience, I have come to respect Reagan the man, his achievements and his leadership.

Now, don’t get me wrong, history doesn’t echo precisely. There’s zero chance my opinion of the man taking the oath of office in 2025 will change – a man whose character, words and actions should have disqualified him from ever returning to the White House.

Yet President he will be. And he and his team will now lead our country’s response to some of the most significant challenges of my lifetime globally (AI, climate, the decline of democracy, to mention a few) and in the Middle East specifically.

In the Middle East, this President and his team will be tested to see if they can bring to bear the pressure and incentives needed to move resolvable conflicts in the right direction.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict has resisted a century of diplomatic effort to resolve it, yet the opportunity for a comprehensive regional agreement has never been greater. (I am convinced these four years present a serious opportunity for what I call the 23-state solution).

Yet, before focusing on the longer term, the new team will have to ensure the success of talks that begin in two weeks to turn this first temporary pause first into a lasting ceasefire that releases all the remaining hostages.

The outgoing US administration has done important work outlining a post-conflict plan for Gaza that would allow Israel to withdraw its forces, prevent Hamas from returning to control and provide for governance, security and reconstruction of Gaza. Secretary Blinken outlined the plan in a speech at the Atlantic Council this past week.

This administration has the leverage and relationships to see this plan through.

In parallel, the Iranian regime is at its weakest in decades and nothing echoes through recent diplomatic history more than the notion of a hawkish leaders striking pragmatic agreements with long-time adversaries (think, Begin-Sadat, Nixon to China and Reagan-Gorbachev, to cite a few examples).

As the clock strikes noon on January 20, I’m hoping my low expectations for the incoming team can be dramatically exceeded and that the echoes of historic diplomatic achievements will inspire the deal makers and diplomats stewarding American policy and interests for the next four years.