Trump's Middle East Plans and Options for the Islamic World

The United States, under President Donald Trump, has consistently followed a foreign policy that challenges traditional diplomatic practices and questions the settled conventions of international law. With a more aggressive and fierce approach anticipated by the Trump administration in 2025, the U.S. foreign policy approach appears more assertive, concentrated, and resolute which may disturb the geopolitics of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Nonetheless, recent indications from Washington, including the declaration of a possible U.S. occupation of Gaza, have raised global concerns. Such an action would breach international law and further destabilize the already precarious situation in the Middle East.

This development is unprecedented and Hamas has misjudged the unfolding events in the Middle East and the future of war-crippled Gaza. For nine months, Hamas has postponed or delayed negotiations. However, with a shift in leadership in Washington, their prospects have decreased, while the hardships faced by Gazans persist. President Trump distinctly differs from his predecessor, Joe Biden. He has chosen to reverse many achievements that his predecessor aimed to accomplish. A prime example is his approach at dealing with the crisis: rather than concentrating on eliminating Hamas, he has suggested to displace Gazans, which in many ways can happen inhumanely.

Undoubtedly, Trump’s proposal to forcibly relocate around two million individuals is impractical, contradicts international law, and lacks backing, even among his own administration and in Congress. However, this does not guarantee that he will be discouraged from trying to enforce it, unless Arab leaders, during their forthcoming discussions with him, manage to convince him otherwise. This article examines the legal, geopolitical, and moral implications of Trump’s ambitions in Gaza, emphasizing the role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, and what options are available for Hamas and other international actors in countering this dangerous agenda.

Introduction

The United States, under President Donald Trump, has consistently followed a foreign policy that challenges traditional diplomatic practices and questions the settled conventions of international law. With a more aggressive and fierce approach anticipated by the Trump administration in 2025, the U.S. foreign policy approach appears more assertive, concentrated, and resolute which may disturb the geopolitics of Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Nonetheless, recent indications from Washington, including the declaration of a possible U.S. occupation of Gaza, have raised global concerns. Such an action would breach international law and further destabilize the already precarious situation in the Middle East.

Nilufar N. Mammadova:
Alienation 2.0 at the First Quarter of the Century

This development is unprecedented and Hamas has misjudged the unfolding events in the Middle East and the future of war-crippled Gaza. For nine months, Hamas has postponed or delayed negotiations. However, with a shift in leadership in Washington, their prospects have decreased, while the hardships faced by Gazans persist. President Trump distinctly differs from his predecessor, Joe Biden. He has chosen to reverse many achievements that his predecessor aimed to accomplish. A prime example is his approach at dealing with the crisis: rather than concentrating on eliminating Hamas, he has suggested to displace Gazans, which in many ways can happen inhumanely.

Undoubtedly, Trump’s proposal to forcibly relocate around two million individuals is impractical, contradicts international law, and lacks backing, even among his own administration and in Congress. However, this does not guarantee that he will be discouraged from trying to enforce it, unless Arab leaders, during their forthcoming discussions with him, manage to convince him otherwise. This article examines the legal, geopolitical, and moral implications of Trump’s ambitions in Gaza, emphasizing the role of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Arab League, and what options are available for Hamas and other international actors in countering this dangerous agenda.

Trump 2.0: A Determined but Perilous Vision

Donald Trump’s first term was characterized by a transactional approach to foreign policy, often referred to as “America First.” Before securing a second term, it is expected that his administration would adopt an even more aggressive stance in pursuing U.S. interests, potentially disregarding international law and global consensus. Gaza occupation—which would not only violate the United Nations Charter but also undermine decades of international efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian—conflict is a prime example of this. The popular slogan MAGA (Make America Great Again) raises the question: can the greatness of the United States come from undermining the sovereignty of others, including Greenland, Panama, or Canada? Such actions would undoubtedly constitute a clear violation of established provisions in international law.

Article 2(4) of the UN Charter unequivocally prohibits the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. Although Gaza is not universally recognized as a sovereign state, it is widely acknowledged as Palestinian territory under international law. The applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which dictates the protection of civilians during armed conflict, reinforces that any U.S. attempt to occupy Gaza would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law. Furthermore, President Trump’s aspirations regarding Gaza should be contextualized within his prior remarks on acquiring territories like Greenland, as well as parts of Canada and Panama. While these statements were initially perceived as eccentric, they highlight a recurring pattern of an imperialistic ideology that fundamentally contradicts the principles of self-determination and sovereignty enshrined in international legal frameworks.

Ivan Bocharov:
Conflict in the Middle East: Possible Regional Implications

Trump’s call for the occupation of Gaza and his candid comments on undermining the sovereignty of Panama, Greenland, and Canada seriously violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which states: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” It also forbids “individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory.” The extensive appropriation of land and the seizure and destruction of property needed to build and expand settlements also violate other rules of international humanitarian law. According to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the public property of the occupied population (including lands, forests, and agricultural estates) is governed by usufruct laws. This implies that an occupying state is permitted only very limited use of this property. This restriction arises from the principle that occupation is temporary, which is the fundamental concept of the law of occupation. In the words of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the occupying power “has a duty to ensure the protection, security, and welfare of the people living under occupation and to guarantee that they can live as normal a life as possible, in accordance with their own laws, culture, and traditions.” The Hague Regulations prohibit the confiscation of private property. The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids the destruction of private or state property, “except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.”

Lessons from Vietnam and the Danger of Overreach

The United States must critically analyze the implications of its historical military interventions, especially regarding the Vietnam War, ending in April 1975, where overreach resulted in a prolonged and catastrophic conflict. The current discussion surrounding the potential occupation of Gaza raises concerns about a similarly protracted engagement, with significant repercussions for both regional and global stability. The Middle East is already a highly volatile region, and any attempts to alter the existing dynamics in Gaza could catalyse a broader conflict, drawing in not only Israel and Palestine but also neighbouring states and international powers. Additionally, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq serves as a salient case study. While initial military operations successfully led to the ousting of Saddam Hussein, the subsequent fallout manifested in rampant instability, the emergence of extremist factions, and a severe humanitarian crisis. The proposed occupation of Gaza, as outlined in Trump's plan, bears the potential to set off a comparable sequence of destabilizing events, further exacerbating the region's volatility and ultimately undermining U.S. strategic interests.

Gaza: A Unique Geopolitical Challenge

Gaza differs from Panama, Greenland, or Canada, and the United States underestimates the situation in the Middle East. It is impractical and unrealistic, as it would result in the ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians in the war-torn Gaza. It is a small area with many people living close together, and it has been in conflict between Israelis and Palestinians for decades. Gazans have faced immense suffering, such as a difficult blockade, many military attacks, food crises and horrific living conditions. If the U.S. tried to take control of Gaza, it would be strongly opposed, not just by the Palestinians, but also by many countries in the Islamic world. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), which includes 57 countries with mostly Muslim populations, has always supported the Palestinian cause. The Arab League has also repeatedly said it wants an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. Many countries, in addition to the United Nations, have called for a solution that would create two states, based on the borders from before 1967. Trump's idea to take control of Gaza would go against these long-held views and isolate the U.S. in international politics.

A Wake-Up Call for the OIC and Arab League

Ivan Bocharov:
Avoiding War

Trump's recent announcement serves as a pivotal signal for the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League to transcend their historical divisions and consolidate their efforts in the defence of Palestinian rights. Since its inception, the OIC has remained ineffective in strongly protecting the interests of Muslims across the globe. It seems that OIC has been reduced to merely a pressure group, portrayed by past OIC performances. Despite its ambitious objectives, the OIC has frequently faced scrutiny regarding its ineffectiveness in addressing humanitarian crises affecting Muslim populations in states such as Myanmar, Xinjiang, India, Afghanistan, and Syria.

The ongoing crisis has yet to elicit an official statement from OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha regarding the organization's stance on the latest announcement from the White House. The organization's repeated failure to initiate decisive action in these conflicts has led to a diminished perception of its credibility as a leading Islamic institution. Given the strategic challenges posed by Trump’s policies in Gaza, there is a significant opportunity for both the OIC and the Arab League to restore their standing. By collaboratively opposing U.S. agendas and advocating strongly for Palestinian rights, these entities can reaffirm their relevance and operational effectiveness. This moment represents a critical juncture for the Muslim world to assert its collective agency and commitment to justice, peace, and stability within the Middle Eastern context.

The Imperative of Unity and Strategic Alliances

To effectively counter the U.S. agenda, the OIC and the Arab League should reinforce their alliances with other global powers, particularly Iran, Russia, and China. Despite the complex nature of its relationships with certain Arab nations, Iran has consistently supported the Palestinian cause and possesses the military capabilities essential for challenging U.S. and Israeli ambitions in the region. Both Russia and China, as permanent members of the UN Security Council, have been critical of U.S. interventionism and could play a pivotal role in resisting Trump's plans. Iran’s growing military cooperation with Russia and China further solidifies its position as a counterbalance to U.S. influence in the Middle East. The OIC and the Arab League must recognize the strategic importance of these alliances and work closely with Iran, Russia, and China to mitigate U.S. ambitions in Gaza and beyond.

Legal and Moral Obligations to Protect Palestine

The OIC and the Arab League play a crucial role in advocating for the rights of the Palestinian people. The UN General Assembly has consistently supported the right of Palestinians to self-determination, with the most recent affirmation in Resolution 77/247 (2022). Additionally, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has determined that the establishment of Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, is inconsistent with international law. Looking into the future, it is vital for the OIC and the Arab League to utilize a full range of diplomatic, legal, and political strategies to address any plans that might undermine stability in the region, including proposals like Trump's plan for Gaza. Taking a proactive stance can help mitigate humanitarian crises and ensure accountability from all parties involved. By working together, these organizations can foster dialogue and seek constructive solutions that support lasting peace and justice for the Palestinian people.

The Critical Phase in Arab History

Ivan Timofeev:
Eurasian Security Architecture: Five Questions and Five Answers

The current moment represents a critical juncture in the historical trajectory of the Arab world. The Middle East stands at a crossroads, and the strategic decisions made by Arab leadership today will have far-reaching implications for the region’s dynamics tomorrow. The U.S. agenda, particularly as articulated through Trump’s initiatives in Gaza, poses a significant existential threat to Arab sovereignty and stability. It is essential for Arab nations to overcome their historical divisions and work collaboratively to protect their collective interests. The Arab League should take on a leadership role in orchestrating a unified response to U.S. policies. This entails not only enhancing its diplomatic leverage at the United Nations but also building stronger partnerships with both regional and global stakeholders. Furthermore, mobilizing public sentiment against U.S. interventionist policies will be crucial in establishing a cohesive Arab front.

Final Remarks

President Donald Trump’s strategic objectives in Gaza illustrate the perilous implications of unchecked U.S. influence in global affairs. It is imperative that the international community, particularly through coalitions like the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) and the Arab League, takes concerted action to counteract these ambitions. A united front among Islamic nations, in collaboration with powers such as Iran, Russia, and China, is essential for safeguarding Palestinian rights and fostering peace and stability within the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape. The manoeuvres originating from Washington must be met with resolute opposition. This situation transcends mere regional security considerations; it poses a fundamental challenge to the international community’s commitment to justice, national sovereignty, and adherence to the rule of law. The stakes are exceedingly high, and decisive action is urgently required.