What role did other international actors (EU, Qatar, UN) play in the agreements Trump claimed credit for?
Executive summary
President Trump publicly claimed credit for a string of Middle East and global agreements, but those outcomes involved active roles from other international actors: Gulf states and Qatar as on-the-ground mediators and leverage points, the United Nations and Arab League as diplomatic frameworks and legitimacy providers, and the European Union as a counterweight or continuity actor—especially on Iran and climate—often opposing U.S. unilateral moves [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting shows U.S. pressure and incentives mattered, yet these agreements were rarely purely U.S. creations; regional calculations, third-party mediation, and multilateral institutions shaped both the content and durability of deals [5] [2] [3].
1. The EU: continuity, criticism and the Iran/Paris fault lines
The European Union did not play a leading role in the U.S.-brokered Abraham Accords but was central in pushing back against Trump’s biggest unilateral withdrawals: the U.S. exit from the Iran nuclear deal and the Paris climate framework, where EU governments and institutions sought to preserve multilateral commitments even after Washington left [3]. Europeans worked to salvage the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action after the U.S. withdrawal in 2018 and consistently criticized U.S. retrenchment from climate and international bodies, positioning themselves as guardians of rules-based multilateralism that Trump’s statements and policy moves often undermined [3] [4]. That divergence meant the EU operated more as a continuity actor counterbalancing U.S. policy than as a co-broker of the accords Trump touted [3] [4].
2. Qatar: indispensable mediator and pressure valve in Gaza and hostage diplomacy
Qatar repeatedly appears in analyses as a practical intermediary whose relationships with Hamas and regional actors made it essential to ceasefire bargains and hostage deals that Trump later publicized as U.S. successes; scholarly and policy reporting credits Doha with influence over Hamas and says Qatar’s security interests and networks helped unlock negotiations that Washington could not achieve alone [2]. In the 2025 Gaza ceasefire process, for example, shifts in regional dynamics—including an Israeli strike that affected Qatari personnel—created an opening Doha could exploit in coordination with Gulf partners and external pressure, a process observers say Trump leveraged but did not single-handedly produce [2]. That undercuts narratives of exclusive U.S. authorship and highlights Doha’s transactional incentives and leverage.
3. The United Nations and Arab League: legitimacy, venues and diplomatic cover
The UN and regional organizations like the Arab League provided diplomatic architecture and international legitimacy for ceasefire frameworks and humanitarian truce mechanics that national capitals negotiated; analysts note that the breakthrough on Gaza depended on diplomatic pressure and engagement “under the auspices of the UN and the Arab League,” even where Washington claimed credit for dealmaking [2]. Conversely, Trump’s broader stance—pulling the U.S. from multiple UN-related bodies and climate committees—reduced formal U.S. engagement in those forums and shifted some leverage to multilateral actors who retained continuity with international norms [6] [7] [4]. Thus the UN functioned both as a partner in implementing parts of agreements and as a critic/alternative locus of influence when U.S. policy diverged from multilateral consensus.
4. Gulf states and regional balance: local drivers, not just U.S. handshakes
Beyond Qatar, the UAE, Bahrain, and other Gulf capitals made independent strategic calculations—balancing security ties to Israel, rivalry with Iran, and economic interests—that produced openings for normalization that the Trump team could formalize but not create alone; reporting on the Abraham Accords and subsequent Gulf diplomacy emphasizes Gulf priorities and incentives as primary drivers, with U.S. diplomacy supplying incentives (e.g., sanctions relief or recognition moves) rather than sole authorship [1] [5]. Scholarly commentary shows that coercive dynamics, Israeli escalation, and Gulf-state desires for stability created bargaining leverage that U.S. actors, including Kushner, translated into public deals [2] [5].
5. Alternative readings and implicit agendas
Supporters frame Trump as the decisive dealmaker who broke long-standing impasses by using U.S. leverage; critics and many international actors argue that his unilateral withdrawals from the UN system, Paris, and other bodies hollowed multilateral tools that could have cemented more durable arrangements—an agenda-driven tradeoff between short-term headline diplomacy and long-term institutional erosion [3] [6] [4]. Some reporting suggests the White House’s focus on transactional bargains and personalization of diplomacy—rewarding compliant partners and sidelining multilateral institutions—was deliberate, reflecting an “America First” doctrine that privileged bilateral leverage over coalition-based solutions [3] [8] [9].