I think Trump's remarks on Gaza are 4d chess
Warning, long post ahead. And b4 I get the I know, I know, "omg the levels of cope..."
First let's define what 4d chess means, and what it doesn't mean. As someone who was "there in the trenches" long before Trump even won the GOP nomination, that is when the concept first arose for Trump.
What is "4d Chess"?
"4d Chess" as I'll define it means intentional use of inflammatory, misleading remarks to enact a change in the perception of a future behavior. It thus has to be alarming, headline-grabbing, and play advantage to Trump's unpredictability.
The "much bigger button" fiasco in North Korea comes to mind.
To the naysayers who would like to claim Trump is a child who changes his mind randomly, and can't scheme such behavior, let's recall the "birthergate" fiasco before his first election, rant.
For a more fleshed out analysis, see this article from 2018, it's one of the better ideological analyses looking to understand Trump's long-term intentions and reading it would help someone understand the otherwise baffling behavior Trump engaged in with North Korea
Patrick ARMSTRONG | 02.01.2018 | FEATURED STORY
Trump Cuts the Gordian Knot of Foreign Entanglements
...What follows is an attempt to divine Trump's foreign policy. It proceeds from the assumption that he does know what he's doing (as he did when he decided to run in the first place) and that he does have a destination in mind. It proceeds with the understanding that his foreign policy intentions have been greatly retarded by the (completely false) allegations of Russia connections and Russian interference.
...We start with four remarks Trump often made while campaigning. Everyone would be better off had President Bush taken a day at the beach rather than invade Iraq. The "six trillion dollars" spent in the Middle East would have been better spent on infrastructure in the USA. NATO is obsolete and the USA pays a disproportionate share. It would better to get along with Russia than not.
To the neocon and humanitarian intervention crowd, who have been driving US foreign policy for most of the century, these four points, when properly understood (as, at some level, they do understand them), are a fatal challenge.
Trump is saying that
1) the post 911 military interventions did nothing for the country's security;
2) foreign interventions impoverish the country;
3) the alliance system is neither useful nor a good deal for the country;
4) Russia is not the once and future enemy.
A Chinese leader might call these the Three Noes (no regime change wars, no overseas adventures, no entangling alliances) and the One Yes (cooperation with Russia and other powers)...
...How to get out of these entanglements? It's too late to hope to persuade the legions bleating that "America must lead" and, even if they could be persuaded, there isn't enough time to do so: they salivate when the bell rings. President Trump can avoid new entanglements but he has inherited so many and they are, all of them, growing denser and thicker by the minute. Consider the famous story of the Gordian Knot: rather than trying to untie the fabulously complicated knot, Alexander drew his sword and cut it. How can Trump cut The Gordian Knot of American imperial entanglements?
By getting others to untie it.
He walks out of the Paris Agreement ("a watershed moment when it comes to debating America’s role in the world"). And the TPP ("opened the door toward greater Chinese influence, and won’t benefit the U.S. economy in the slightest"). His blustering on Iran caused the German Foreign Minister to express doubts about American leadership. He brusquely tells NATO allies to pay their own way ("America’s NATO allies may be on their own after November if Russia attacks them"). By announcing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel he unites practically everybody against Washington and then uses that excuse to cut money to the UN. His trash talk on North Korea has actually started the first debate about the utility of military force we've seen for fifteen years. He pulls out of Syria (quietly and too slowly but watch what he doesn't talk about). One last try in Afghanistan and then out. Re-negotiate all the trade deals to US benefit or walk away. Be disrespectful of all sorts of conventions...
So again if you keep in mind that at the time of this article (2018), Trump was initiating his inflammatory dialogue with Kim Jong Un, and bragging over his "much bigger button". He also started (but then stopped due to some troop getting killed) negotiations with the Taliban around 2018, paused them for a year, only to silently restart them in 2020.
At the time, his behavior was paradoxical. MSM did not understand if he legitimately wanted to engage in military confrontations with North Korea or not, with the Taliban, and every other entity.
Pundits and "analysts" like Kyle Kulinski who are limited to reactionary comments to the news are incapable of this kind of pragmatic analysis, so it's important to filter out their explanations. Even Kulinski-lite analysts who are talented/intelligent but engage in emotionally reactive doomerism (Michael Tracey, Caitlin Johnstone) need to be filtered out in this type of case.
What is NOT 4d Chess?
4d chess does NOT mean the Qanon type pacification type "Trust the plan" shit which arose, perhaps largely thanks to USAID/etc funded folks shilling to disrupt the MAGA folk into supporting imperialist/globalist goals, even the extradition of Snowden and Assange.
Furthermore, people may not realize this but Trump has awareness to realize many of his goals are in conflict with "old guard" gop types. Some of his "4d chess" moves aren't even aimed at democrat partisans, but changing the minds of rank and file republicans, and perhaps even those in a foreign audience. Trump lost a lot of his popularity in Israel, and Netanyahu took a massive PR hit with the hostage deal. Netanyahu's coalition could in fact collapse due to that PR fallout, which would open a gap for an even worse hardline radical to move in.
So why do I think it's 4d chess?
Because ethics aside (this is the first issue where I even find myself in extreme disagreement with Trump, a la the 2017 Syria strikes), the move doesn't even make sense.
First - The US could acquire Greenland, the Panama canal, and those moves would make sense in context of acquiring valuable territory for economic gain, Natsec gain, etc, with very little downside. Annexing Gaza, and forcing Gazans out, would be akin to annexing parts of Afghanistan, Iraq, or Syria and kicking out the locals. It would be a time and money sink with minimal return.
Second - The move wouldn't even make fucking sense for the whole "Israel first" crowd: Israeli expansionists want that land to be part of ISRAEL. America owning that land would still block off new settlements.
Third - Trump is willing and able to use sanctions and tariffs to put pressure on countries. Mexico and Canada got into a spat over tariffs and culture wars and other bullshit as they faced very real coercion to negotiate with the US. So far with the Arab world, we are only seeing public theatrics.