The United States is working to establish a multinational stabilization force to oversee the Middle East’s most volatile region, with a focus on Gaza. In a closed-door meeting in Doha on December 16, representatives from around 45 Arab, Muslim, and Western states gathered to discuss the formation of an International Stabilization Force (ISF). Notably, Israel was not invited to the meeting, which was seen as a significant omission.
The agenda centered on practical aspects of the mission, including its structure, rules of engagement, and deployment zones. This technical focus underscored the political implications, as parties began discussing the use of force and potential incidents, implicitly acknowledging that conditions on the ground would be challenging.
A key point of contention lies in the mandate of the force. Some reports suggest that the ISF would serve as a buffer, facilitating humanitarian aid and maintaining basic security, while others propose that it should be tasked with disarming Hamas. However, the concept does not envision direct confrontation with Hamas, creating a classic peacekeeping dilemma.
The geography of responsibility is also a point of debate, with many potential contributors more willing to discuss a presence in areas under Israeli control than in districts where Hamas’ influence persists. This hesitation highlights the risk of combat and the reluctance of participating countries to assume that risk.
The meeting’s participant list is telling, with Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Qatar, Indonesia, and European states such as the UK, France, and Italy in attendance. However, the closed format raises questions about who is prepared to make concrete commitments. Many states are willing to provide funding, training, and logistics but are hesitant to deploy their own troops, citing the political cost of potential casualties and the risk of escalation.
The absence of Türkiye from the meeting is also significant, with reports suggesting that Israel objected to its participation. This omission has implications for the mission’s legitimacy and the balance of influence in the region.
The prospective mission is linked to a broader settlement plan, which includes transitional governance arrangements, a reduction of the Israeli presence, and the disarmament of Hamas. A UN Security Council resolution in November provided a framework for the formation of a stabilization force and associated international structure. The US is attempting to build a multilateral project with distributed responsibility, but the distribution of responsibility remains a core challenge.
The truce in Gaza, established in October, has been marked by managed escalation, with each side seeking to demonstrate that it is responding to the other’s breaches. The situation remains fragile, with incidents and accusations of violations threatening to derail the agreement. The US is pushing for a logic of managed transition, but the reality on the ground is sustained by a constant stream of force-related caveats.
The complexity of a Gaza settlement is evident, entangling regional dynamics, historical conflicts, and domestic politics. The Trump administration has a domestic incentive to “finish the architecture” ahead of the midterm elections, but the central contradiction remains that deescalation in Gaza does not automatically stabilize the region. Tensions persist on the northern front with Lebanon, and the Iran-Israel track remains highly combustible, threatening to overshadow any success in Gaza.
