ISIS terrorist organization’s stance on Trump’s ceasefire agreement for Gaza
By Saud Al-Sharafat
The ISIS terrorist organization expressed a strongly rejecting stance toward U.S. President Donald Trump’s ceasefire agreement for Gaza (October 2025), considering it an American–Israeli conspiracy intended to rescue Israel from its military and political predicament and to rehabilitate Washington’s image after its failure to maintain full dominance in the region. The organization articulated this position in the opening editorial of al‑Naba newspaper, issue 517, published in late September 2025, which devoted substantial space to attacking the agreement and all parties involved
The ISIS terrorist organization regards the agreement as a new American ruse meant to consolidate Western influence and guarantee Israel’s security under the guise of “peace.” The agreement is depicted as part of a long series of conspiracies the United States conducts against what it calls the “Muslim nation,” aimed at aborting what ISIS describes as “legitimate jihad” and turning an ideological struggle into political negotiation that serves the West. The organization asserted that Washington employs diplomatic language to mask its military shortcomings in Gaza and to achieve strategic objectives through political means rather than direct force
In the same vein, ISIS launched a severe assault against Palestinian factions that accepted the ceasefire, labeling them “apostate factions betraying the blood of the mujahideen.” According to its rhetoric, those factions abandoned “jihad” in favor of alliances with “infidels,” thereby straying from true creed. The editorial allocated space to accuse Hamas and Islamic Jihad of exemplifying Islamic currents that have deviated from the “combative method,” following in the footsteps of “collaborative” Arab regimes—according to ISIS—who accept peace with the West and Israel. From this perspective, the organization argued that these factions have become legitimate targets, much like the existing political regimes across the region
ISIS also sought to exploit the agreement to bolster its ideological and media propaganda, presenting itself as “the only current steadfast against American conspiracies.” It linked the agreement to earlier initiatives such as the Oslo Accords and the “Deal of the Century” to demonstrate—by its logic—that all attempts at “peace” are repetitive steps in a Western project aimed at erasing the militant Islamic identity. Within this framework, the organization used the agreement to justify the continuation of its terrorist operations in areas of its presence in Iraq, Syria, and the Sahel, framing them as a response to attempts to “extinguish jihad” and impose calm
Despite its categorical rejection, the organization offered an alternative reading in some parts of the editorial by noting that Israel’s willingness to accept a ceasefire constitutes— from its perspective—evidence of Israeli weakness and defeat before the “mujahideen,” and that the United States is no longer able to impose its military will in the region. ISIS exploited this narrative to boost its supporters’ morale, asserting that the West is experiencing “confusion and decline,” and that events in Gaza demonstrate the “collapse of the infidel international order,” reinforcing its recurrent rhetoric about the imminence of divine empowerment
In concluding the editorial, the ISIS terrorist organization called on its followers to continue fighting and to reject any ceasefire or truce, insisting that such agreements do not bind the “mujahideen.” It stressed the need to intensify operations against Israel and its allies, arguing that “the current phase requires disavowal of anyone who accepts reconciliation,” and that the war in Palestine is only part of the larger struggle between “Islam and unbelief.” Through this rhetoric, the organization attempted to convert a limited political event into an occasion to renew calls for “global jihad” and to foment hostility toward regimes and factions alike
This stance clearly reveals the organization’s rigid ideological nature, founded on the rejection of any political solutions or peaceful settlements and a denial of the legitimacy of states and international institutions. ISIS does not view the Palestinian–Israeli conflict as a political dispute that can be resolved; rather, it frames it as an existential religious battle in which negotiation or concession is impermissible. This reflects the organization’s continued detachment from the region’s political and social realities and its adherence to an impractical, idealized discourse that seeks to perpetuate armed conflict as an end in itself, rather than as a means to a political goal
From a propaganda and political standpoint, the ISIS terrorist organization’s reaction to Trump’s Gaza ceasefire demonstrates its attempt to exploit major regional events to revive its media and ideological presence following its territorial decline. It seeks to present itself as a “steadfast” current that refuses compromises, capitalizing on public anger toward American and Israeli positions to attract hardline elements within factions or among their constituencies. Yet, despite the rhetorical noise, this discourse remains confined within the isolated extremist milieu: it offers no practical or political alternatives and resorts instead to repeating calls for violence and terror while rejecting reality. Thus, the organization’s stance on the agreement is less a political analysis than a desperate effort to regain ideological and media momentum by manipulating the Gaza tragedy to rationalize continued terrorism and chaos under the slogan of perpetual jihad.
