Arsonist and Firefighter: How the U.S. Fueled Gaza’s War — and Claimed the Credit for Quenching It

 

On the global stage today, President Trump visited the Middle East under the banner of peacemaker, positioning himself at the center of a “historic ceasefire” in Gaza. Yet behind that polished image lies a far more complicated, morally fraught reality: the United States has served both as the arsonist and the firefighter in Gaza’s flames. It supplied the fuel for the war — in weapons, intelligence, diplomacy, and even technological infrastructure — and now seeks to emerge as the savior.

The Fuel: How the U.S. Helped Ignite and Sustain the War

1. Massive arms, munitions, and military aid
   From the outset of hostilities, the U.S. positioned itself as Israel’s prime arsenal supplier. The U.S. has approved arms deals, delivered bombs, guided munitions, interceptors, and logistical support on a large scale. Council on Foreign Relations+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4
   These weapons do not stay inert — they are used in air campaigns and ground operations. Thus the U.S. cannot credibly claim to be a neutral mediator when it actively enabled Israel’s strike capacity.

2. Intelligence, surveillance, targeting support, and technological enablers
   While many of the mechanisms are classified, analysts have long documented collaboration between U.S. and Israeli intelligence and surveillance systems. Council on Foreign Relations+2Quincy Institute+2
   Moreover, in modern warfare, cloud computing, AI, satellite imagery, algorithmic targeting, and real-time data linkage are essential to scaling and accelerating strikes — domains in which U.S. tech firms and governmental systems are global leaders. If such systems were shared or sold, they become part of the enabling architecture of war.

3. Diplomatic shielding and veto power
   At the United Nations and other international forums, the U.S. has repeatedly used its influence — including veto power — to block criticism of Israel, delay or dilute ceasefire resolutions, and prevent binding accountability. Quincy Institute+3Truthout+3Council on Foreign Relations+3
   That diplomatic cover helps reduce external pressure on Israel and prolong war operations.

4. Strategic alignment and long-term policy commitments
   U.S. strategic alignment with Israel means that Israeli defense priorities often align with U.S. policy goals in the region (e.g. countering Iran, preserving regional alliances). Atlantic Council+2Quincy Institute+2
   Thus U.S. support is not passive — it is embedded in a geopolitical framework that privileges military over diplomatic solutions.

In short: the U.S. has not been a neutral bystander. It has armed, enabled, and sustained Israel’s military campaign.

The Firefighter: How the U.S. Seeks Credit for the Ceasefire

1. Positioning itself as mediator and broker
   Trump’s visit, the summit in Sharm El-Sheikh, and the public signing of a ceasefire document with Egypt, Qatar, and Turkey all place the U.S. at the center of the peace narrative. Reuters
   The optics are strong: headlines proclaim a U.S.-brokered truce, hostages freed under U.S. auspices, presidents and prime ministers meeting under U.S. leadership.

2. Deploying “monitoring” forces and coordination bodies
   As part of the ceasefire agreement, the U.S. is sending ~200 troops to Israel (but not into Gaza) to support and monitor implementation, and to establish civil-military coordination centers. AP News+5AP News+5The Guardian+5
   By embedding itself in the enforcement mechanism, the U.S. retains leverage over how peace is managed and ensures ongoing relevance in the post-ceasefire stage.

3. Framing the narrative, setting the terms
   U.S. statements now declare “the war is over” and cast Trump’s role as pivotal to peace. New York Post
   This narrative shifts public memory: from U.S. as enabler to U.S. as rescuer, sidelining inconvenient truths about prior complicity.

4. Leveraging soft power, reconstruction, and governance in Gaza
   Ceasefires are fragile if not paired with reconstruction, governance reform, demilitarization, and humanitarian access. The U.S. and its allies are positioning to play a central role in reconstruction funds, technical aid, and administration. This ensures the U.S. remains in the driver’s seat even after active combat ends.

The Moral and Strategic Stakes

• Credit without accountability: The U.S. seeks praise for the peace it helped enable — while evading responsibility for the destruction it helped cause.

• Skewed power dynamics: If peace is brokered on terms favorable to Israel (and to U.S. strategic goals), the Palestinian side may be excluded from real agency.

• Fragile peace: Ceasefires in Gaza have repeatedly unraveled. The deeper, structural issues — territory, rights, governance, demilitarization — remain unresolved.

• Narrative control: Whoever frames the story shapes public memory and future accountability. A dominant narrative that portrays the U.S. as savior may forestall demands for redress, justice, or reform.

Conclusion / Call to Awareness

The U.S. should not be allowed to operate with impunity in its dual role. Public memory must hold both actions in view. As Gaza begins the painful process of reconstruction and governance, the world must insist: credit for peace does not erase complicity in war.

The truce may last this time — or it may crack again. But historical reckoning demands that we call out contradictions: yes, the U.S. helped put out the flames — but it also supplied the fuel.

Stay ahead with today’s trending stories — get full coverage and insights.

Discover More Trending Topics