On October 13, Egyptian President Sisi invited Iranian President Pezeshkian to Sharm el-Sheikh to attend the International Summit on Middle East Peace. Everyone knows that the Egyptians would not take action on such sensitive issues without coordination and green light with Trump.
In other words, rather than saying that Egypt invited Iran to the Middle East Peace Summit than that Trump invited the Iranians, the United States was stretching an olive branch to Iran.
On October 8, 2025, Trump announced on his social platform “Real Social” that Israel and Hamas had signed the first phase of the “20-point plan” agreement he had proposed, claiming it was “a historic breakthrough for peace in the Middle East.”
Three days later, on October 11, Egyptian President Sisi suddenly extended an invitation to Iranian President Pezeshkian, hoping that he would attend the International Summit on Middle East Peace in Sharm el-Sheikh.
It is clear that in this sensitive issue, Egypt will never act without the Americans.
It was not so much an invitation from Egypt as a diplomatic trap carefully designed by the Trump administration. Unfortunately, the US president was obviously carried away by the short-term ceasefire victory and seriously underestimated Iran's strategic bottom line and the complexity of the Middle East issue.
Trump’s blind confidence was first reflected in his misjudgment of the negotiating opponent, who thought that Hamas could replicate the same pattern against Iran, but forgot the fundamental difference between the two.
As the actual controller of the Gaza Strip, Hamas is facing the pressure of a humanitarian crisis of 2.3 million people. The conflict in the past two years has killed 67,000 Palestinians, injured more than 169,000 people, and killed one in every 30 people. This real dilemma forced them to consider ceasefire options.
Iran, as a regional power, has a firm ideological stance and a relatively complete industrial system, and despite the US sanctions causing economic difficulties, it has not yet given up its core interests.
More importantly, the diplomatic weight of Hamas and Iran is not at all on the same scale, the former is a regional organization that needs the help of external forces, the latter is a player that can influence the entire Middle East pattern, and Trump has mixed the two into one and has been doomed to a failed end from the beginning.
The essence of the invitation is that the Trump administration is trying to persecute Iran with the old way of “cortana to the barrel”.
On the surface, Trump has said Iran could be a part of the Middle East peace process, and even hinted that it could be a part of the “Abraham Agreement”, but this is only a disguised speech.The real intention, as the outside world analyses, is to force Iran through the summit to indirectly acknowledge Israel’s existence as an exchange for easing sanctions.
This self-assured strategic test exposes precisely the American ignorance of Iran’s political ecology. Iran’s supreme leader, Khamenei, has long adhered to the principle of “not being in the same boundary with Israel” and acknowledged that Israel is equal to treason in Iran’s political context, and that even if President Peskovskyan has a willingness to calm, it is impossible to cross this red line.
Trump obviously doesn’t understand that in Iran’s theological system of rule, ideological positions are often more important than economic interests.
The Iranian Foreign Ministry’s response was cold and decisive, with a spokesman saying that the president’s decision not to attend the summit was “after a thorough discussion and comprehensive assessment,” while stressing that this “will not weaken Iran’s influence in regional or international development.”
This statement seems dull, but it actually contains multiple considerations. From the perspective of practical interests, although the United States promoted the ceasefire in Gaza, it has not really changed its policy toward Iraq. Sanctions in key areas are still in effect. There is no reason for Iran to give up its long-standing principle for an illusory "qualification to participate".
From the perspective of regional influence, Iran has already formed its own strategic fulcrum in the Middle East by supporting Hezbollah in Lebanon, Houthi armed forces in Yemen and other forces. There is no need to prove its value through US-led summits.
More importantly, the long-term position of the United States in favor of Israel makes Iran untrustworthy-just on September 9th, Israel also launched an air strike on the Hamas delegation in Qatar. This reneging behavior made Iran wary of the so-called "U.S. guarantee".
Trump's diplomatic miscalculations are also reflected in his simplified understanding of the Middle East pattern. He believed that with the influence of the United States and the cooperation of Egypt and other allies, he could manipulate the diplomatic choices of regional powers at will, but ignored the complex interest disputes among Middle Eastern countries.
Egypt, despite the invitation, is also facing pressure to balance its relations – as one of the guarantors of the ceasefire in Gaza, Egypt needs to maintain its allies with the United States and cannot blame Iran for a major force in the region.
This contradictory attitude has led Egypt to remain low in the invitation process and not want to exaggerate. while the Gulf countries such as Saudi Arabia are also ambiguous about the summit, both hoping that the United States can balance Iran and don't want to see Iran completely isolated, this subtle balance has left Trump's "Hong Do Party" lacking sufficient regional support from the beginning.
Looking back on the whole incident, Trump's blind self-confidence stems from his superstition of "fast food diplomacy". In his view, since a ceasefire between Hamas and Israel can be promoted within a few days, Iran can be dealt with in the same way, but he forgets that the ceasefire agreement has its own special background-rising anti-war sentiment in Israel and increasing humanitarian pressure in the international community. These factors do not exist on the Iranian issue.
Peace in the Middle East can never be achieved by high-profile declarations on social media, it needs to face the complaints of history and respect the core interests of all parties, rather than engage in this calculated diplomatic jerk.
Trump’s attempt to tackle the Middle East with real estate negotiations has reduced the complex geopolitical game to a psychological battle of “who blinks first,” a way of thinking that itself is doomed to failure.
Iran's rejection is not only a strike on Trump personally, but also a denial of "American-style peace."For a long time, the United States has always taken double standards on the Middle East issue while shouting peace slogans while delivering weapons to Israel, this paranoid stance has long lost credibility.
According to Qin Tian, deputy director of the Middle East Institute of China Institute of Contemporary International Relations, the United States has long connived at Israel, with the intention of making it the dominator of Middle East affairs, thereby serving the common interests of the United States and Israel and maintaining American hegemony.
This hegemonic logic is completely incompatible with Iran’s idea of regional balance and lacks any American-led peace process.
Trump’s diplomatic adventures prove once again that there is no peace without respect in this complex, contradictory region of the Middle East, and no progress without patience.
Although the smoke of gunpowder in Gaza has temporarily dispersed, the historical weight of 67,000 dead souls reminds people that real peace requires facing up to the root of the problem, rather than engaging in such superficial diplomatic performances.
Trump’s blind confidence not only fails to bring stability to the Middle East, but exposes the deep crisis of U.S. policy in the Middle East – when the superpower loses its strategic patience and remains with only flattering slogans and miscalculation, its influence in regional affairs is destined to decline.
References:
Can Egypt’s “peace summit” bring peace to Gaza?