The Foreign Affairs Interview

Episode: America’s Two-State Delusion

Host: Dan Kurtz-Phelan (Editor, Foreign Affairs)
Guest: Rob Malley (Former senior U.S. Middle East official, author)
Date: October 23, 2025

Overview

This episode delves into the persistent U.S. advocacy for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as analyzed by Rob Malley, drawing on his new book Tomorrow is Yesterday (co-authored with Hussein Agha) and their recent essay in Foreign Affairs. Malley offers a comprehensive critique of decades of U.S. Middle East policy, arguing that the two-state solution has become a counterproductive mantra, unsupported by realities on the ground or genuine commitment from either side. The conversation spans historical reflections, recent developments in Gaza, alternative frameworks, and the shifting politics of the United States and broader region.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Questioning the Two-State Solution

• Historical context and critique:

  • Malley critiques the U.S. policy from the 1990s onward, stating the two-state solution became a default objective, lacking sufficient prioritization and commitment from American decision-makers.
  • He argues the very pursuit of a two-state solution may have been a mistake if it was never a true national security priority for the U.S. or sincerely sought by the parties (02:38).

  "It was never clear that it was a national security priority... If you don’t make that decision up front, you’re kind of throwing yourself into something that is much deeper than what you’re prepared for.”
  — Rob Malley (02:38)

• Failures of the peace process:

  • The United States often ceded control to Israeli objections and lacked a clear, enforceable vision (03:47).
  • Even ideal diplomatic efforts might not have succeeded, because the parties’ deeper aspirations were never aligned with the technocratic notion of partition (05:57).

  “The process and the pursuit itself was mistaken… Neither one of them was defined as we want a two state solution in the borders of ‘67. That was not what they were fighting for.”
  — Rob Malley (05:57)

• On delusion and rhetoric:

  • Over time, clinging to a two-state solution turned from policy to slogan to self-delusion and, at times, outright falsehood (09:23).
  • The phrase became a way for policymakers to appear constructive while avoiding difficult choices or consequences.

  “The mantra… became, for people of good faith, a refuge for those who didn’t want to give up any hope… For people of bad faith, it became a refuge for people who want to say… we’re at least trying something, even though they knew it wasn’t going to work.”
  — Rob Malley (09:23)

  “The burden should be on [those] who still believe in a two-state solution to say how they’re going to get there, because at this point they’ve said it enough.”
  — Rob Malley (05:00 and 17:40)

2. The Gaza War and U.S. Complicity

• Biden administration approach:

  • Malley lambasts the “warm embrace” doctrine of U.S.-Israel policy, especially after October 7. The U.S. followed Israel’s lead and provided military support, despite evidence of war crimes in Gaza (21:05).
  • He argues the U.S. possessed leverage it refused to use, such as conditioning or withholding arms transfers.

  “The experience is that the Israeli leadership takes the embrace, forgets the criticism and keeps going.”
  — Rob Malley (21:05)

  “I think early on the U.S. should have taken the position that it was insisting on a ceasefire… you can’t justify the perpetuation of a war… even if it were associated with the legitimate goal of trying to get the hostages out.”
  — Rob Malley (24:17)

• Ceasefire & aftermath:

  • Trump administration achieved a ceasefire through unorthodox and direct engagement with all parties, including Hamas (27:59). Malley credits Trump with the willingness to break taboos, even as he offers harsh criticism of the conduct of the war and preceding policies.

  “No American president even dreamt of having a direct discussion with Hamas. We now know the Trump administration did at very senior levels. And second, to tell Netanyahu at some point, enough is enough…”
  — Rob Malley (29:00)

3. Alternative Paradigms and the Future

• Beyond two-states:

  • Malley highlights alternative approaches, such as confederation models and ideas that envision more porous sovereignty—where Israelis and Palestinians might share land with differentiated citizenship (15:01, 18:32).
  • U.S. policy, he suggests, should move from prescribing outcomes (one-state, two-state, etc.) to upholding principles: equal civil and political rights for all between the river and the sea (19:01).

  “I do think…the position of any administration should be…agnostic as to the particulars… It should be that anyone who lives between the river and the sea should enjoy the same political civil rights.”
  — Rob Malley (19:01)

• Viability of current plans:

  • Malley is skeptical about the durability of the Trump plan or of the ceasefire, citing lack of enforcement mechanisms and divergent party goals (34:21).
  • He doubts Hamas will willingly disarm or Israel will accept robust third-party intervention in Gaza (37:47), foreseeing at best an “unstable equilibrium.”

4. Regional Dynamics and Currency Conversion Problem

• Israel, U.S., and Palestinian paradoxes:

  • Israel has unprecedented military ability but has not converted it into diplomatic gains; Palestinians have more international sympathy but political weakness; the U.S. has unique power but struggles to act effectively (39:59).

  “All three parties have this…discrepancy between assets which they can’t convert into real benefit.”
  — Rob Malley (39:59)

• Gulf states and shifts in public opinion:

  • Gulf governments have pragmatically maintained ties with Israel despite public anger over Gaza.
  • Malley notes shifting U.S. public opinion, especially among younger generations, may have long term consequences for Israel (44:00, 43:17).

  “If I were an Israeli official, I would take [shifting public opinion] seriously… In terms of government, yes… Israel could take satisfaction… that governments… by and large… have not taken real measures against Israel. But public opinion matters.”
  — Rob Malley (43:17)

5. The Iran Nuclear File

• Impact of recent strikes:

  • Israeli and U.S. attacks have set back Iran's nuclear program, but the gap for a weapon remains comparable to before (45:39).

  • The possibility of a renewed nuclear deal exists, especially if Trump—unconstrained by prior orthodoxy—offers more meaningful trade or sanctions relief. However, Malley notes fundamental trust and sequencing obstacles remain (45:39 – 50:31).

  “Iran has very few assets left… They’re not going to give it up for nothing… I could see that outcome [a deal], I don’t have the pathway.”
  — Rob Malley (48:00)

6. A New U.S. Policy Approach and Political Realignment

• Zero-based review:

  • Malley advocates scrapping old assumptions, focusing instead on U.S. interests, reputation, and willingness to hold Israel accountable when its policies hurt American interests (60:12).

  “It’s not a matter of breaking with Israel, but understanding that Israel, like any other country, has its own interests and we should have ours… when Israel is pursuing policies that we think are going to hurt our interests… we need to make clear that our support has its limits.”
  — Rob Malley (60:12)

• Political shifts in the U.S.:

  • The Democratic Party is undergoing transformation, with rising calls for conditioning aid to Israel and broadening debate about support for Israeli policies, particularly after Gaza (61:33, 62:00).
  • Malley predicts a robust internal debate about the future of the U.S.-Israel relationship, with unknown political consequences for coming elections.

  “The real question for the Democratic Party… what happens to this quote, unquote reassessment when the war is over and you have an Israeli government which is either led by Netanyahu, but without Smotrich and Ben-Gvir… Does the bulk of the Democratic Party… go back to business as usual?”
  — Rob Malley (61:44)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Those who still believe in a two state solution, the burden should be on them to say how they’re going to get there, because at this point they've said it enough.”
  — Rob Malley (00:05, 17:40)

• On U.S. leverage:
  “The experience is that the Israeli leadership takes the embrace, forgets the criticism and keeps going.”
  — Rob Malley (21:05)

• On realities of Israeli and Palestinian aspirations:
  “Neither one of them was defined as we want a two state solution in the borders of 67. That was not what they were fighting for… they acquiesced in it, but never with sincerity.”
  — Rob Malley (05:57)

• On the triumphalist narratives:
  “It just… for me those two things, you can’t even put them on the same plane… Maybe Israel will not have achieved as much of its objectives… It would have gotten the hostages out early on.”
  — Rob Malley (26:13)

• On regional paradoxes:
  “Israel today is more powerful regionally in terms of military power possibly than it’s ever been… and yet it is more ostracized in the world as ever been. Palestinians… seldom seen [this level of] international support… and yet the Palestinian national movement is about as weak as it’s ever been… The U.S. has… a president who can do whatever he wants… and yet… doesn’t know where it wants to go.”
  — Rob Malley (39:59)

• On a new policy:
  “The bottom line should be, is this something that is harmful to U.S. interests, and that has not always been the criterion that’s been selected.”
  — Rob Malley (60:12)

Important Segment Timestamps

• The core mistakes of U.S. two-state policy: 02:38 – 07:55
• The transition from hope to delusion in U.S. policymaking: 08:41 – 12:21
• Debating alternatives to the two-state model: 15:01 – 21:05
• The Gaza war, U.S. complicity, and the leverage question: 21:05 – 29:00
• Assessing the collapse and prospects for new paradigms: 34:01 – 39:03
• Regional "currency conversion" problem: 39:59 – 43:17
• The Iran file and prospects for diplomacy: 45:07 – 54:03
• U.S. policy, zero-based review, Democratic Party debate: 60:12 – 64:18

Tone and Language

Throughout, both Malley and Kurtz-Phelan maintain a forthright, critical yet reflective tone, blending policy expertise with personal experience and occasional wryness.
Malley’s language is direct, often unsparing of both U.S. and local actors, but also open to uncertainty and nuance.

Conclusion

The episode offers a trenchant, deeply informed, and often sobering account of why the two-state solution has endured more as a symbol than a viable objective, how U.S. policy has failed to adapt, and what alternatives—political and moral—should guide thinking moving forward. Listeners and policymakers are challenged to abandon comforting illusions, embrace the complexity and lived aspirations of all sides, and approach the region with both principle and creative pragmatism.