The Trump administration is moving forward with a security and reconstruction plan for Gaza that is drawing direct comparisons to past U.S. nation-building efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In a startling announcementwith Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on February 4, 2025, President Donald Trump declared that the United States would “take over” the Gaza Strip, level the site, and redevelop it into “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
This vision is part of a 20-point peace plan that has since been endorsed by a UN Security Council resolution.
The operational core of the plan is the creation of an International Stabilization Force (ISF) and a focus on economic development.
The ISF, which the U.S. hopes will grow to 20,000 personnel, is tasked with training a new Palestinian police force and providing security, but with a critical limitation: its mandate is to operate only in a designated “green zone,” initially deploying alongside Israeli soldiers.
On the economic front, the plan commits to a “Trump economic development plan to rebuild and energize Gaza,” convening experts to transform the territory and create a special economic zone.
The administration’s blueprint is facing intense scrutiny over its feasibility, with critics pointing to a lack of committed partners and a potentially dangerous operational environment.
One major concern is the “green zone” concept. The U.S. military’s plan to partition Gaza into a secured “green zone” and a “red zone” left in ruins has drawn immediate and uncomfortable parallels to the U.S. experience in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In Baghdad and Kabul, these fortified enclaves became symbols of the disconnect between Western forces and local populations. A U.S. official acknowledged that reunifying Gaza is an “aspirational” long-term goal, with no timeline for when it might occur.
Another challenge is the reluctance of international partners.
The U.S. initially envisioned European nations such as the UK and France providing thousands of troops, but these expectations were described by one source as unrealistic, as European leaders are unwilling to risk soldiers’ lives in Gaza.
Key regional partners have also refused; Jordan’s King Abdullah has explicitly ruled out sending troops for political and security reasons.
Critics also argue that the plan underestimates the complexity of the situation on the ground. While the ISF would be limited to the “green zone,” Hamas is reasserting control in the “red zone.”
Furthermore, the idea of using aid to tempt Palestinians into an area under Israeli control after a devastating war echoes past U.S. “hearts and minds” strategies that failed in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Experts warn that the Gaza initiative risks repeating the costly mistakes that characterized U.S. nation-building projects in the Middle East.
The three-part strategy of training local security forces, pursuing economic reconstruction, and building governing bodies closely resembles the Bush administration’s approach in Iraq.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence officer, has argued that such a plan would be seen in the Arab world as evidence that Washington has not learned from its experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The specter of a prolonged and expensive commitment also looms large. The U.S. spent more than $140 billion on reconstruction in Afghanistan and around $53 billion in Iraq, with devastating casualties and outcomes that ultimately collapsed.
Afghanistan today is under Taliban rule and facing a severe humanitarian and economic crisis, marked by a systematic erosion of women’s rights and ongoing security threats. The international community largely does not recognize the government.
Twenty-two years after former Vice President Dick Cheney told NBC News that, “My belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators,” the invasion of Iraq is widely recognized as a costly, destructive, humiliating, and ultimately fruitless enterprise.
On November 11, 2025, Iraqis voted in their seventh parliamentary election since the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003, but no party has emerged with a decisive victory.
A planning document from Trump’s current effort acknowledges that Palestinian security forces may require outside funding and guidance for decades, suggesting a similarly open-ended commitment.
The administration’s approach to foreign policy has also raised questions. During a recent trip to the Gulf, Trump focused on striking major deals and securing investment pledges.
One analyst noted a prioritization of short-term deliverables and bilateral loyalty over a cohesive U.S. strategy for regional crises.
This has led to concerns that the Gaza plan is driven by a similar transactional mindset, a perception reinforced by reports of a proposed deal with Libya’s government to share billions in frozen assets in exchange for U.S. support.
The proposal has faced swift international and domestic backlash.
A senior Hamas official condemned Trump’s resettlement comments as an attempt to expel Palestinians from their land and a recipe for chaos.
The Saudi government has stated its rejection of any attempt to displace Palestinians and has reiterated that it will not normalize relations with Israel without the establishment of a Palestinian state.
In the United States, Democratic Senator Chris Coons called the suggestion that the U.S. might “take over” Gaza “insane,” adding that he could not think of a place where American troops would be less welcome or where a positive outcome would be less likely.
Human rights advocates have also warned that the forced displacement of Gaza’s population would likely violate international law, comparing the idea to ethnic cleansing.
The Trump administration’s Gaza plan envisions a dramatic transformation of a war-torn territory.
The United States plans to construct a massive new military base near Gaza capable of housing thousands of U.S. troops, according to a report by Israeli outlet Shomrim.
The proposed $500 million base signals a dramatic expansion of the U.S. military footprint in Israel and suggests the Trump administration is preparing for a direct, long-term role in Gaza’s stabilization.
This move sharply contradicts Trump’s campaign vow to end American entanglements in the Middle East.
“Trump ran successfully on ending the forever wars,” said Annelle Sheline of the Quincy Institute. “Building a U.S. base in historic Palestine is antithetical to the America First policy he was elected to implement.”
Sheline warned the base would not only endanger U.S. troops but could also “bog down America in Israel’s occupation indefinitely.”
However, with its echoes of past military interventions, a lack of international partners, and deep skepticism about its underlying motives, the proposal appears to be on a collision course with the hard lessons of recent history.
Discover more from NJTODAY.NET
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.