Trump's accusations against both Israel and Palestine for violating the ceasefire protocol are essentially a continuation of his "crisis management" technique—by creating a public discourse framework of "both sides not following the rules," he avoids attributing responsibility for the breakdown of the ceasefire while reserving political flexibility for subsequent actions. In reality, the ceasefire in the Middle East has always been fragile, but Trump's statement conceals three layers of political calculations:

1. Liability transfer mechanism: Blaming the failure of the ceasefire on the conflicting parties, covering up the absence of the United States as a mediator in supervising the protocol, continuing its self-packaging as a "problem solver rather than a creator";
​
2. Narrative elasticity construction: Regardless of which party actually violates the protocol, the characterization of "both parties breaching" provides justification for subsequent military or sanction measures, avoiding the passive situation of being solely blamed.
​
3. Domestic political anchoring: By reinforcing the stereotype of "irrational actors in the Middle East", it echoes the "strongman" governance persona and caters to the MAGA camp's expectations for "tough diplomacy."

It is worth noting that this accusation forms an absurd contrast with his previous boast of a "permanent ceasefire," exposing the essence of his diplomatic strategy as a narrative tool serving domestic electoral needs—when the ceasefire cannot sustain the script of a "peace victory," creating a new narrative of "both sides violating the agreement" becomes an alternative solution to prolonging the political performance. #BTC# #ETH#