Editor’s Note: Aaron David Miller is a vice president and distinguished scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and author of “The End of Greatness: Why America Can’t Have (and Doesn’t Want) Another Great President.” Miller was a Middle East negotiator in Democratic and Republican administrations. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his own; view more opinion articles on CNN.

CNN  — 

In the past several days, a few new wrinkles have appeared in the Trump administration “deal of the century” peace plan conceived by first son-in-law Jared Kushner: CNN broke the news that the political portion of the self-described Ultimate Deal would be delayed again, this time until after the September 17 Israeli elections.

Aaron David Miller

And Israeli journalist Barak Ravid reported that the administration had decided not to invite official Israelis to the upcoming Peace to Prosperity investors’ workshop in Bahrain, perhaps because Arab states might be embarrassed by meetings including Israeli officials when there were no credible Palestinians in attendance.

Postponed by Israeli elections; castigated by Palestinians; constrained by the Arab states, and pretty much dismissed (even though still sight unseen) by just about everyone else, Donald Trump’s peace plan has proven so far to be pretty much a fraught affair.

So why would the Administration want to make statements and undertake actions in recent weeks that would seem to make getting to Israeli-Palestinian talks that much harder? The only plausible explanation is that while launching negotiations would indeed be an important accomplishment, it cannot come at the expense of or undermine what are, for the administration, more important aims: boosting Trump’s stock among hardline domestic pro-Israeli constituencies, gutting the two-state solution and helping to re-elect Benjamin Netanyahu.

Annexing the West Bank

Earlier this month, David Friedman, America’s Ambassador to Israel and formerly Donald Trump’s bankruptcy lawyer, made more than a little news by opining that Israel has a right to annex parts of the West Bank.

Coming from a man who has been an active proponent and funder of Israel’s settlement enterprise, the statement may not have been all that surprising. But one could be forgiven for thinking that it was not the wisest of moves given the administration’s interest – weeks before its conference in Bahrain – in attracting Palestinian and Arab state support.

Annexing the major West Bank settlement blocs adjacent to Israel (where the vast majority of Israelis living on the West Bank reside) has long been Israel’s position, and as long as it occurred in the context of a negotiation and was acceptable to Palestinians, it was Washington’s position, too.

But given the Trump Administration’s opposition to a Palestinian state comprising the vast majority of the West Bank, Friedman’s reveal on annexation strongly implies that it can happen unilaterally – peace plan or not –and that it may be assumed in the territorial component of the Kushner plan.

Indeed, a not-so-hidden Administration agenda is clearly focused on not just killing the two-state solution (which Trump and company have all but abandoned) but making it harder for succeeding administrations to embrace, which would surely be the case if much of the West Bank is unilaterally annexed to Israel.

The Israelis will love this plan

The Administration has made clear that neither side will like everything in its peace plan. And there will be hard decisions for Israel, too. But anyone listening and watching the Trump Administration in past two years understands that the “deal of the century” is a deal preternaturally stacked in Israel’s favor.

Earlier in June, in a leaked audio of a meeting with American Jewish leaders, Pompeo restated the obvious: “I get why people think this is going to be deal that only the Israelis could love.” And it’s easy to see why. The Administration has all but delegitimized the idea of Palestinian statehood; prioritized Israeli rights on Jerusalem over the Palestinians and waged a political and economic war against the Palestinian Authority while they’ve bestowed nothing but benefits on Israel.

If this Administration was seriously committed to resumption of negotiations they might have tried to craft an approach on a conflict-ending solution that was fair and equitable; or alternatively recognized that the time was simply not right and tried to pursue a more incremental approach for now to ensure security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinian Authority and support the Palestinians economically. They’ve done neither.

What they seemed to care most about is ensuring that nothing they do alienates the President’s domestic constituencies, including conservative Republicans, evangelicals and wealthy Jewish donors, such as Sheldon Adelson.

Palestinians can’t govern themselves?

In a wide-ranging interview last week with Axios, Jared Kushner, referring to his peace plan and Palestinians, questioned whether Palestinians could govern themselves. “The hope is that they over time will become capable of governing,” he said.

One might have thought that, several weeks out from the Bahrain workshop on the economy that its key architect would have had a stake in trying to attract Palestinians rather than alienating them.

Yes, there is corruption and dysfunction in Palestinian governance – worse in Hamas – and the Palestinian national movement looks like Noah’s Ark, where between Fatah and Hamas there are two of everything – statelets; constitutions; security services; and visions of where and what Palestine is.

But the patronizing and condescending attitude this Administration has taken toward Palestinians, the way they’ve trivialized and demeaned Palestinian aspirations and the pressure campaign waged against them is not only wrong but counterproductive if the goal is to draw them into negotiations.

If the goal is to pick up points with core Republican constituencies, then pressuring Palestinians – even demonizing them – and courting Israelis are always terrific talking points. Indeed, when the Kushner plan is presented and Palestinians almost certainly reject it, there’s no better political outcome for Trump than claiming that once again Palestinians have bungled an opportunity.

Re-electing Netanyahu

Based on these statements, one could be forgiven for thinking the Administration either doesn’t care or is trying - strange as it might seem- to undermine its own plan. But that’s only one way to judge the Administration’s behavior. Trump’s quixotic quest for the ultimate deal to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was never really tested against the harsh realities that make it now nearly impossible.

A much better way to think about the Administration’s objectives is as a function of the President’s politics. He has used his dramatic support for Israel to separate himself from Barack Obama, initiate a series of historic firsts in US-Israeli relations and shore up domestic support from pro-Israeli constituencies.

Stay up to date...

  • Join us on Twitter and Facebook

    And emblematic of this Israel-first policy is his relationship with embattled Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who not only validates Trump’s credentials with this hardline constituency but is a sort of soulmate as they both confront investigations, a hostile media and attacks from liberal adversaries.

    Trump’s efforts to intervene in Israel’s April 9 election to help Netanyahu were unprecedented, and Trump has already expressed his support for Netanyahu in the do-over set for September 17.

    Indeed it is quite revealing that if Trump were really serious about Middle East peacemaking, instead of backing and courting an Israeli prime minister who isn’t serious about the matter, he’d throw his support behind one who was.