As his presidency draws to a close, President Biden faces a series of challenges, the most recent being the debate over his perceived invisibility, particularly in light of the most pressing crisis as he prepares to leave office: the possibility of a shutdown of most non-essential federal agencies due to a lack of funding. Such a crisis has erupted more than once over the past four years, but Biden was previously active and present in resolving it before escalation. This time, however, his absence has sparked widespread speculation.

Another challenge is the potential delay in reaching a ceasefire agreement and securing the release of Israeli hostages held by Hamas in exchange for Palestinian prisoners. These internal and external issues stem from the influence President-elect Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk exert over Republicans in Congress and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Every outgoing American administration fulfills its duties until the very end but generally avoids committing the incoming administration to decisions it may not support. This is what the Biden administration is attempting, particularly by facilitating a stopgap funding resolution in Congress to keep the government running until after Trump takes office. However, Trump and Musk have instructed House Republicans to block the bill, which took months to negotiate, citing concerns over funding for projects favored by Democrats.

Outgoing administrations also aim to secure foreign policy achievements in their final days. For example, the Biden administration brokered a sixty-day renewable cessation of hostilities in Lebanon. U.S. presidential envoy Amos Hochstein played a key role in this agreement, balancing Biden’s current priorities with potential adjustments under Trump’s leadership. Biden can claim credit for the deal, but Trump will have the power to confirm or modify it after taking office.

U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken praised the agreement in an interview with Foreign Affairs magazine published on Thursday, December 19, describing it as a victory for President Biden’s policies. Blinken highlighted that Hezbollah was left with no alternative but to accept the terms set by the U.S.

Blinken also dismissed claims that the deteriorating Middle Eastern situation and reduced support for Ukraine were the administration’s major failures. He emphasized that Washington has provided Ukraine with sufficient resources for the coming year and equipped it to negotiate from a stronger position if needed.

While President Biden has pledged to maintain this presence, there is no guarantee that his successor will uphold the same commitment.

Regarding developments in the Middle East, Blinken acknowledged that the biggest loser is the Iranian axis. Hamas, which aimed to ignite a multi-front war against Israel, failed, resulting in mass displacement and destruction in Gaza. Hezbollah’s efforts to bolster its image by opening a support front for Gaza from southern Lebanon backfired, leading to destruction in southern Lebanon, the Bekaa Valley, and southern Beirut while costing it prominent leaders. Iran also suffered a blow as it was further excluded from access to the Mediterranean following the Assad regime's downfall.

However, U.S. Middle East policy remains incomplete without addressing the Palestinian issue. In Washington’s view, any ceasefire agreement and hostage release represent short-term achievements. In the long term, Washington envisions two paths for Israel:

Integration into the region through peace agreements, normalization of relations, economic revitalization, and trade, which could reduce security concerns.

A continuation of the destructive cycles witnessed over the past fourteen months, deepening human suffering and material devastation.

There are approximately seven million Jews and five million Palestinians in Israel and Palestinian territories. Blinken acknowledges this demographic reality as unchangeable and advocates for coexistence and Palestinian self-determination within a framework that ensures Israel’s security.

This vision, however, does not resonate widely in Israel. Former Defense Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin and National Security expert Avner Golov wrote in Foreign Affairs that three competing visions exist in the region:

Hamas aimed to ignite a multi-front war, but its efforts were sporadic and lacked serious commitment.

Hezbollah sought a war of attrition to weaken Israel economically and psychologically, but this strategy failed as Israel responded forcefully.

The U.S. sought peace and stability through a two-state solution.

The failure of these visions has paved the way for a new one—Israel’s vision. Supported by American backing and the limited involvement of Iran, the Houthis, and Iraq, Israel is leveraging regional dynamics to reshape the Middle East. However, for this vision to succeed, Israel must coordinate with neighboring countries, including Jordan, Egypt, Gulf Arab states, and European partners.

The question remains: Where do Palestinians fit into this new order? Israel insists on Palestinian reforms to eliminate corruption and extremism and demands Gaza’s complete demilitarization before reconstruction efforts can begin. Additionally, Palestinians must recognize Israel as a "Jewish state."

Under these circumstances, it is unclear who would represent the Palestinians in negotiations, under what political framework, and what rights they would secure in return.

The Hamas offensive and Israel's subsequent response have provided an opportunity for the United States to bolster its military presence in the Middle East. U.S. forces are now deployed across key straits and military bases in Gulf Arab states. While President Biden has pledged to maintain this presence, there is no guarantee that his successor will uphold the same commitment.