U.S. Middle East Policy: Is the Gaza Proposal a Game-Changer or a Mistake?

Muhammad Ibrahim

I focused intently on my research of world affairs when a headline about U.S. planned ownership of the Gaza Strip shocked me to a halt. A shocking claim in that headline instantly brought me to a state of complete surprise during my normal reading routine. An unyielding America First strategy implemented through direct unilateral actions could change a conflict-prone area. Or did this action represent yet another careless move set to wreck the destroyed terrain?

The proposal to “own” Gaza marks a stark departure from traditional U.S. multilateral diplomacy.

The United States had been a major player in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries for decades. At the end of World War II, American leadership was crucial in rebuilding war-torn nations and in the creation of allied forces to help define the Cold War order. Diplomacy was a slow and deliberate process — back then, it was through international institutions and multilateral treaties — but today, world dynamics are changing. As a precaution, the very volatile region, these carefully crafted frameworks gave the facade of semblance of stability in a very volatile region.

But important as it is to scrutinize the traditional U.S. approach, global power and social dynamics have shifted, particularly as China has risen so quickly, and domestic realignments have taken place in the U.S. Today, everything in the alliance and every dollar is scrutinized down to its contribution to the national security and prosperity of USA. Against this, the proposal to “own” Gaza does not just seem like something new– it is a shocking realization that we live in an ‘America First’ code that values unilateral rather than the collaborative spirit that marked once American foreign policy.

The new policy has a divisive stance that allows the US to oversee the Gaza Strip operations. The plan describes to restructure Gaza to be a modernized place for which it can be transformed into a tourist spot or an example territory. This kind of courageous strategy becomes necessary, of course, because America is now envisioning its national interests in terms of present security interests. Proponents believe that the United States can become dominant in this process by establishing direct control over regional power structures, as well as establishing new models of security in the context of weakening traditional political agreements of time-old alliances.

In fact, this proposal is an extreme contrast to the way the United States has operated in the world prior. With support for international institutions for sustainable stability, American policy in the Middle East traditionally builds its multilateral relationships. Single-handed moves of this extent are contrary to global law standards, especially at a time when the region is already as insecure as it can get. Changing the force governance on Gaza it would probably provoke a large population traffic and aggression to human rights would be aggravated in a process that inconveniences the Palestinian people’s right to self governance.

This proposal has been met by swift and divided international reaction. That proposal has been condemned by policymakers and commentators alike in many Arab capitals as an imperil overreach, as an unentailed incursion on soveriegnty that would tip a region that is anything but at peace into a wrack of political instability. Uprooting Gaza’s future without any say in the matter is more of a nightmare than a beacon for many.

Forcibly altering Gaza’s governance structure risks triggering mass displacement and intensifying the humanitarian crisis.

For the most part, traditional U.S. allies across Europe are in profound unease. In these nations, whose intercourse with Washington historically has been based on mutual trust and cooperative action, the prospect is that radical unilateral moves will not only effectively undermine the multilateral frameworks that have sustained world diplomacy but also undermine Washington’s credibility. But analysts warn that if U.S. foreign policy regards national interests as solely transactional — willing to sacrifice international cooperation in pursuit of immediate results — America could be shunned by key partners and become less important on the world stage.

The fact that the U.S. administration reportedly greenlighted the renewal of Israeli airstrikes on Gaza confirms the controversy and has been widely condemned by international observers. Reported by the Times of Israel, this decision takes place as the truce heads to the dump and the region sinks further into conflict. In such a case, a dual approach combining unilateral control and renewed military strikes runs the risk of exacerbating the humanitarian and geopolitical crisis in Gaza.

Possibly its most disconcerting aspect of the Gaza proposal is its humanitarian ramifications. Millions have lived in Gaza as hostages to relentless hardship, chronic instability and the final consequences of continuing conflict. For the residents of Gaza, life is scarce and suffering. Changers of governance structure in such a context are forcibly risking triggering mass displacement, aggravating human rights abuses and dragging the territory into an even harsher humanitarian crisis. On the face of it, whatever that means strategically, the proposal is grand, but must also be weighed against the human cost it can inflict.

The proposal is equally geopolitically significant. Taking direct control of Gaza would be a seismic shift in regional power dynamics if the United States were to assume control. This move would be an encroachment on the long and hard-fought Palestinian aspiration for self-determination, and it would be seen as such by the Palestinian faction, and because of that, Egyptians and Jordanians in adjacent countries might consider this as an unworthy interference, disrupting the established balance of power. This unilateral maneuver could provoke even Israel, a nation tightly interceded with the fate of Gaza, into questioning its security mechanisms. Instead, the proposal could turn into an accelerant of further conflict and a destabilizer of a region on the knife’s edge.

Additionally, this takes a unilateral approach to the future of American global leadership. Though such a transactional “America First” diplomacy may produce short economic gains, it also increases the risk of alienating the United States and rendering it more isolated than at any moment of recent history. In the long run, such a move could erode the international order that has been serving ties in maintain stability in the world for many years.

However, the success of this radical U.S. policy pivot ends up coming down to a number of key factors. First, the United States must be careful to avoid both advancing its national interests and maintaining the commitment it owes as a global mediator. While any tractable solution to the burgeoning problem in Gaza must rely on robust safeguards to protect the rights and welfare of Gaza’s hearts and the mass of its civilian population, no one to whom humanity has been entrusted would contemplate leaving such a situation raw.

Second, what the international community will do is key. If key regional players and traditional U.S. allies reject it, America might be left with an increasingly isolated region that favors multilateralism as well as cooperative security arrangements. Conversely, if the policy is carried out in accordance with international norms and with strong safeguards, it may be a novel, if conflictual, path for American foreign policy.

The broader strategic implications in general are vast. A new recalibrated policy of strong unilateralism and ‘America First’ could see realignment of global alliances, and shift the balance of power in the Indo-Pacific, as well as Europe. Policymakers face these complexities and must ask, can a strategy that fundamentally redefines sovereignty and puts short-term gains first ultimately lead to a more stable and prosperous future, or will it instead sow the seeds for further discord?

This is a paradigm shift from a long multilateral approach in the Middle East, epitomized by the thoroughly controversial idea of ‘owning’ Gaza. Such bold action is the necessary advocate’s call to realign American interests in a world in which competition unfolds ceaselessly and relentlessly. But critics fear its approach already risks destabilizing a volatile region, trampling international law, and alienating long time allies.

An ‘America First’ strategy may yield short-term gains but risks long-term global isolation and instability.

Can America’s new, radical approach to the Middle East lead to a path towards lasting peace, or will it exacerbate the isolation of the United States and provoke a new round of conflict? How can such a nation that was once been leading the way for multilateral diplomacy truly choose to forsake it all and embrace a transactional “America First” model, without it hurting the values by which it has been operating?

It will be the only time that informs whether this recalculation of course represents a visionary reorientation to international norms or a potentially hazardous deviation from them. However, what is not in doubt is that American foreign policy is undergoing a radical transformation that will change the nature of global diplomacy, affect regional stability, and change the quest for peace in an increasingly challenging environment.

The Author is an independent researcher and analyst. His expertise lies in analyzing the foreign policy of great powers, War, and its implications on global politics.