Many Americans and allies in Europe and the Middle East woke up recently confused and shocked to learn of US President Donald Trump’s declaration that the United States will “take over” the Gaza Strip, and its approximately two million inhabitants should be moved elsewhere. They shouldn’t be.
Trump’s plans and goals to end many of the traditional domestic and global norms we’ve experienced in the post-World War II period were never a secret. And his recent policy declaration is not part of a strategic master plan to get Hamas to agree to a deal with better terms for Israel and the United States. Nor is it a strategy to cajole Egypt or Jordan to be more accommodating to US preferences in the region, as some commentators have assessed.
The plan the president announced is about remaking the world and US interests in it in a fundamental way. Does the president truly believe his plan can ultimately be executed? Maybe, maybe not. If it cannot, then it could indeed serve as a starting point for negotiations over Gaza with Arab states, making the result the same regardless of whether he intended the plan to be a serious proposal or not.
But even if his plan is a nonstarter, which it almost certainly is, it’s not because that was the intent all along. Rather, it is because he doesn’t fully understand, or perhaps care, about the history of the region, the complexities of intra-Palestinian relationships, the potential implications for US allies, or, most importantly, the emotional connection most people have to their home.
Without those drivers influencing his views, the president’s proposal makes strategic sense and is not actually contradictory to his fundamental goal to end extensive US involvement in the Middle East. From his perspective, the only way to reduce long-term US financial obligations in the Middle East, which are largely tied up in security support, is to gut Gaza and start over from the ground up. If the United States doesn’t take the lead in doing that, then the long-term costs associated with having to protect Israel, for example, will continue indefinitely. A single Iron Dome interceptor missile, for instance, costs upwards of fifty thousand dollars, for which the United States provides most of the financing. And the United States gives over $1.4 billion annually in mostly security aid to both Jordan and Egypt.
For the president, a US “take over” of Gaza must appear to be the best way to incubate a region of peace, eventually allowing security costs to be significantly reduced. And while he proposed on Tuesday to do so with US efforts on the ground, the White House press secretary said today that Trump’s statement “does not mean American taxpayers will be funding this effort.” The president probably expects what he called “neighboring countries of great wealth”—almost certainly a reference to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and potentially Kuwait—to pay for some or all of it. Either way, if the United States puts in the time to rebuild Gaza, the president expects it to reap much of the economic benefit once its capacity to be, as he said, “the Riviera of the Middle East” is achieved.
The president might genuinely view his proposal in humanitarian terms, as National Security Advisor Michael Waltz highlighted, seeking for Gazans to be moved to third countries as a means to ultimately help them. The result, however, is a distinction without a difference, both legally and politically: forced displacement is a violation of international law—and Trump does not seem to care about international laws or norms.
A disturbing deal for regional leaders
When Trump announced his plan, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu may not have been aware it was coming. But ever the consummate politician, he paid credence to Trump without endorsing it during the press conference, saying that Trump “has a different idea, and I think it’s worth paying attention to this.” The reality is that implementing the plan would be a disaster for Netanyahu and Israel, given the likely destabilizing impact it would have on the region.
Nor would it be any better for other US regional partners and allies. Jordanian and Egyptian leaders’ opposition to relocating any Gazans to their countries is not just a matter of international law but of domestic stability. For both Amman and Cairo, the implications of doing so are likely to be viewed in existential terms. Such a move could be construed as endorsing the desire of those in Israel who oppose a Palestinian state. That is a grave concern for the leaders, especially in Jordan, where more than half of the population is of Palestinian descent.
And both Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi and Jordanian King Abdullah II would be equally concerned that some of those displaced are members of Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist organizations. These people would then become the responsibility of Egypt and Jordan to control, creating a near certainty that the terrorist groups would then seek to attack Cairo and Amman, as well. A destabilized Jordan and Egypt, Netanyahu certainly understands, would increase instability in the Levant, and with it threats to Israel.
But even worse for Israel, this project would set back Israeli and US relations with Gulf states. Tuesday night, the president said, “And I really believe that many countries will soon be joining this amazing peace and economic development transaction.” But for Riyadh, which immediately responded by highlighting that it will not normalize ties with Israel without a two-state solution, the displacement of the Palestinian population from Gaza at the behest of the United States would probably be a bridge too far. This is also true for Abu Dhabi, which has been heralded by Trump for signing the Abraham Accords. Since the attacks on October 7, 2023, both Saudi and Emirati populations have been relatively less vocal than some of their Arab brethren about the conflict. That could change. Even monarchies must be responsive at times to their people. Instead of advancing peace, the expulsion of Gazans would likely undermine the accords and jeopardize Riyadh’s willingness to consider joining them before a Palestinian state is formed.
It’s almost impossible to imagine Trump’s plan for Gaza coming to fruition. But it would be a mistake to think that he was anything but serious with the proposal he laid out Tuesday night. Doing so risks underestimating how committed he will be for the next forty-seven-and-a-half months to changing the US role not just in the Middle East, but in the world.