President Trump's proposed strategy for ending the conflict with Iran involves postponing the resolution of the most contentious issues. This approach mirrors tactics employed in past attempts to broker peace in Gaza, where similar delays have yielded mixed results.

The plan, as understood, aims to achieve an initial agreement by putting aside deeply divisive topics, suggesting a phased approach to de-escalation and potential resolution. The rationale behind such a strategy is often to build momentum and trust through easier concessions before confronting the harder challenges.

This tactic of deferring difficult negotiations is not new to international diplomacy, particularly in long-standing conflicts. In the context of Gaza, attempts to reach comprehensive peace agreements have frequently involved prioritizing immediate security concerns or humanitarian issues while leaving core disputes, such as borders, settlements, or the status of refugees, for later.

The implications of Trump's proposal hinge on whether the initial, more manageable agreements can pave the way for tackling the core issues, or if deferring them will allow them to fester and ultimately derail the entire process. The success of such a strategy often depends on sustained political will and a genuine commitment from all parties to eventually address the underlying disputes.

Past experiences in Gaza offer a complex precedent. While some phased approaches have led to temporary cessations of hostilities or limited improvements in living conditions, they have often failed to achieve a lasting political settlement. Critics argue that deferring fundamental disagreements can create a false sense of progress, while simultaneously allowing the parties to solidify their positions on the unresolved issues.

Supporters of the strategy might contend that breaking down a complex conflict into smaller, more achievable steps is a pragmatic way to initiate a peace process that might otherwise be stalled by intractable differences. The hope is that incremental progress can build a foundation for more comprehensive negotiations down the line.

However, the effectiveness of deferring contentious issues is heavily debated. Experts in conflict resolution often caution that unresolved core issues can undermine any progress made on secondary matters, as they remain the fundamental drivers of the conflict. Without a clear roadmap and commitment to address these, initial agreements risk being fragile.

Questions remain about which specific issues Trump's proposal seeks to defer and what the timeline would be for revisiting them. The international community and the parties involved will be closely watching to see if this tactic can indeed lead to a sustainable resolution or if it repeats the patterns of incomplete agreements seen elsewhere.