The Uncertain Future of Gaza as Washington Designs Regional Protests
The Uncertain Future of Gaza as Washington Designs Regional Protests
According to Iran Gate News Agency, while Washington has initiated the second phase of Trump’s plan for the future of the Gaza Strip, a series of political, security, and economic initiatives aimed at restructuring the power dynamics in this region have been put on the agenda. These initiatives, which are advancing with Israel’s support, face widespread opposition from Palestinians, Arab governments, and a significant part of the international community, raising serious questions about their implications for Gaza’s future and regional equations.
Within the framework of the second phase of the Trump administration’s proposal regarding the future of the Gaza Strip, the U.S. government seeks to guide post-war arrangements in a way that aligns with Washington and Tel Aviv’s broader security and political goals.
This plan, which explicitly emphasizes establishing economic and security mechanisms for managing Gaza, disarming resistance groups, and imposing a form of foreign guardianship, has faced widespread opposition from Palestinians, Arab governments, and a significant part of the international community.
In this context, Witkoff and Kushner have visited the occupied Palestinian territories and presented a draft resolution to the Security Council, the three main axes of which are assessed to include implementing Trump’s economic package, reviving the regional normalization process, and redefining Israel’s position in the surrounding environment.
Strategic Goals of the U.S. and Israel
1. Advancing Trump’s economic plan prioritizes creating economic and security frameworks for Gaza without focusing on Palestinians’ fundamental rights, aiming to disarm resistance groups by relying on foreign, Arab, and international forces.
The level of rights and privileges envisaged for Palestinians is designed so that any limited change is defined as a significant concession, ultimately marginalizing their political and security independence.
2. Reviving the normalization process and strengthening regional alliances: U.S. policy emphasizes Saudi Arabia’s role as an entry point into the normalization process to encourage other Arab countries to follow suit.
Simultaneously, reducing the influence of the resistance axis in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen and limiting Iran’s regional role is pursued as part of strategic considerations.
3. Improving Israel’s international image: Efforts to rebuild Israel’s image after extensive casualties and destruction in Gaza are among the stated objectives within the framework of Trump’s plan. This effort aims to present Israel as a normal and acceptable partner in the region.
Challenges and Obstacles to Implementing the Plan
Trump’s plan faces a series of internal and external obstacles. The Palestinian Authority, many Arab countries, and part of the global community oppose foreign guardianship over Gaza and insist that managing this region should be the responsibility of Palestinian institutions and that the political process should follow a two-state solution.
At the operational level, disagreements about the mission of foreign forces are notable, especially since the Palestinian side emphasizes these forces’ supervisory and peacekeeping roles, not executive roles in disarming or exerting military pressure. Additionally, the Trump administration’s unwillingness to support a two-state solution and transfer Gaza’s control to the Palestinian Authority are other main obstacles to advancing this plan.
U.S. Strategies for Addressing Obstacles
In coordination with Israel, several paths have been considered to reduce obstacles: 1. Pressure on the Palestinian side through continued restrictions, control of crossings, aid dependency, and limited military operations. 2. Engaging Arab and Islamic countries with promises of political and economic incentives for participating in Gaza’s reconstruction process and potential participation in international forces. 3. Reducing the influence of resistance groups by pressuring the Palestinian Authority and other groups to accept Trump’s plan and providing guarantees for reconstruction and new management.
Key Points of Disagreement
1. Management of the Gaza Strip: Trump’s plan proposes forming an administrative committee of Palestinian and international technocrats under the supervision of the American Peace Council, while Palestinian groups emphasize Gaza’s management by internal institutions and national consensus. 2. Disarming resistance: While the U.S. and Israeli proposal emphasizes disarming Hamas and resistance infrastructure, a significant portion of Palestinians view this as a natural right of self-determination. Egypt has also opposed implementing such a plan without forming a Palestinian state. 3. Role of international forces: Ambiguity in the duties and powers of these forces and disagreements among guarantor countries, including Turkey and Qatar, against Israel, have created a serious challenge in defining their operational role.
Regional and Security Consequences
Although Trump’s plan presents some reconstruction capacities and temporary violence reduction, it leaves key issues such as how to disarm resistance and mechanisms for managing Gaza without fundamental solutions, increasing the likelihood of fragile agreements and potential security tensions in the future.
Meanwhile, the U.S. and Israel will maintain their agenda of pursuing military and political objectives related to limiting resistance groups’ roles and stabilizing Israel’s regional position.
The operational map of both parties includes two strategic paths: 1. Utilizing the humanitarian crisis by applying economic and human pressures to encourage population relocation from parts of Gaza. 2. Geographical division of the Gaza Strip by creating eastern and western zones, with the eastern part under Israeli forces’ control and the western part within the framework of reconstruction programs and under international forces’ supervision, similar to what is stated in clause 17 of Trump’s plan regarding conditional humanitarian aid.
Final Assessment
Based on current trends, the U.S. and Israeli proposal for Gaza’s future is more inclined toward consolidating Israel’s political and security position and limiting resistance groups’ roles than securing Palestinians’ fundamental rights.
Although this plan is presented with language related to reconstruction and peace, it effectively reduces Palestinians’ political and security powers and diminishes their national rights to conditional concessions.
The opposition of Palestinian parties and several regional countries to disarmament and the imposition of international guardianship has challenged the legitimacy of this process at the international level.
A sustainable solution, according to many observers, is only possible by respecting Palestinians’ fundamental rights, strengthening national structures, active local community participation, and guaranteeing decision-making independence. Post-war reconstruction should pave the way for real stability and rights realization, not serve as a tool for pressure or guardianship imposition.
At a macro level, without considering Palestinians’ demands, U.S. and Israeli efforts to normalize regional relations and stabilize their position could reproduce the same cycle of crisis.
The success of policies requires a combination of diplomatic actions, human reconstruction programs, and guaranteeing Palestinians’ political and security rights.