Donald Trump’s quest to see a peace deal for Gaza seemingly met with success with a ceasefire agreement. But the joy may be premature, given that Benjamin Netanyahu is to run the agreement past his cabinet. As well, the terms of the understanding are to be implemented in stages. It is a framework, but the actions of all the participants must be tightly aligned.

Surely, gaining some understanding is a significant accomplishment given the pitfalls of diplomacy. Trump placed a great deal of pressure on Netanyahu, which in turn strained their relations. But this strong-arming did not guarantee a finished product.

Given the political cajoling that allowed Trump to use his “Abraham Accords” Arab allies as a fulcrum, Netanyahu, no doubt, heightened his suspicion of the United States.

Despite the usual belief that Israel has Washington in the bag, in all things Middle Eastern, the two governments have not always seen eye to eye.

Dwight Eisenhower pulled the plug on the joint British, French, and Israeli attempt to occupy the Suez Canal in 1956. He also made the government of David Ben Gurion give back the Sinai under threat of a suspension of aid.

But the problem for Eisenhower and succeeding US presidents was the instability of the region. America had to send troops to Lebanon in 1958, as it saw Egypt getting closer to the Soviet Union. Add to that the fall of the Iraqi monarchy. By the 1960s, Israel was seen as the most reliable diplomatic player for the US.

But each Israeli success puts pressure on the United States. The 1967 victory over the Arab states created more refugees, and the occupation of Sinai and the West Bank put the United States in a bind. In 1970, the rise of the Palestinian Liberation Organization created even more pressure for the US to seek a general settlement.

It was the Yom Kippur War in 1973 that led to a shift in US foreign policy in the Middle East. Egypt demonstrated, along with Syria, that it could enjoy success against Israeli arms. Nixon reversed their earlier success by enhancing Israeli strength. But this action emboldened the Saudis to lead an oil boycott in 1973, which placed Nixon in a precarious position.

This led to another attempt to find an alternative to the Israeli alliance. Nixon placed a lot of faith in the Shah’s Iran. But all the weapons acquired between 1973 and 1979 did not keep this government from collapsing. Jimmy Carter’s Camp David Accords tried to continue Nixon’s initiatives towards Egypt and Iran, only to see them limited by turmoil.

At present, Trump is trying to build a coalition that will have the United States, not Israel, calling the shots. After all, Israel’s raid on Qatar led to the President getting tough towards Netanyahu.

However, it is interesting to note that every American initiative since Eisenhower has led to even more instability. Given this, Netanyahu might still have the upper hand.