Amid renewed Middle East turmoil, the United States is advancing a strategy that links post-war stabilisation in Gaza with efforts to disarm armed militias, particularly Hezbollah. Seeking to reassert regional influence, Washington is backing an international stabilisation force in Gaza while pressuring Lebanon to curb Hezbollah’s capabilities, an approach fraught with political, security, and diplomatic risks at home and abroad.
NADIA HALLAK, BEIRUT, LEBANON | ARAB CORRESPONDENT, NEWS ANALYTICS
5 mins read.
After years of devastating war in the Gaza Strip, which left widespread destruction of infrastructure and hundreds of civilian casualties, a fragile ceasefire has been in place since October 2025. Despite this progress, the truce is temporary at best amid ongoing fears of renewed violence between armed factions and Israel. In this context, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution allowing the establishment of a temporary international stabilisation force in Gaza as part of the U.S. plan.
The resolution received support from 13 countries after previous, stricter initiatives failed to pass in the Security Council. This step reflects international recognition that Gaza requires direct international oversight, with the United States remaining the central mediator among the parties.
CORE FRAMEWORK
According to the international resolution, a Board of Peace will be established to oversee political and security operations in Gaza, alongside the deployment of a temporary International Stabilisation Force (ISF) under a unified command approved by all relevant parties. The force will be tasked with supporting the fragile ceasefire, preventing renewed military escalation, coordinating humanitarian assistance and reconstruction efforts, gradually dismantling non-governmental military structures within defined legal frameworks, and supporting the training of a Palestinian police force to ensure a sustainable local security presence after the international forces withdraw.
The plan also envisions a gradual Israeli withdrawal from the Strip, based on specific milestones tied to progress in the disarmament of armed factions. This places Washington in the position of mediator linking security and politics, carrying major responsibility in balancing the interests of all parties, including Israel, Palestinian factions, and international stakeholders.
According to the latest U.S. estimates, the first deployment of the international force is expected by mid-January 2026, with a clear timeline established for this phase. The first stage focuses on securing vital areas, followed by logistical support and public infrastructure reconstruction, while the final stage evaluates the international force’s effectiveness in maintaining security and preventing renewed military operations.
The proposed Gaza framework seeks to replace ad hoc crisis management with structured international oversight linking security, governance, and reconstruction.
OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES
Despite theoretical progress, the international force plan faces major challenges that could hinder its success.
• Lack of clear mechanisms to address Hamas’s weapons: Although disarmament is repeatedly mentioned, no concrete operational mechanisms exist for handling Hamas’s military capabilities, raising fears that the international force may be largely symbolic without sufficient authority to enforce real stability.
• Declining commitments from participating countries: Reports indicate some countries are reconsidering their participation due to concerns about long-term involvement or domestic backlash.
• Disputes over rules of engagement: While some countries want the force to play an active role in “dismantling military arsenals”, others favour leaving primary security responsibilities to the Palestinian police, creating potential operational conflicts between international and local forces.
Hamas firmly rejects any role for the international force that involves forcibly disarming factions, viewing such involvement as siding with the occupying forces rather than serving as a neutral mediator. Other Palestinian groups, such as Islamic Jihad, hold similar positions. This puts Washington and the UN to the test in balancing genuine neutrality with the need to maintain stability.
Given these variables, what was once seen as a comprehensive solution has now become hostage to delicate technical and political details that could determine the plan’s success or failure in the coming months. The debate continues over whether disarmament can be achieved without triggering violent backlash.
DISARMING HAMAS
While the UN resolution and the push for an international force indicate the need to disarm armed factions, this remains one of the most complex elements of the U.S. plan. The United States, through senior officials such as the Secretary of State, emphasises that lasting stability in Gaza requires reducing the capabilities of armed groups, especially Hamas. However, implementation requires:
• A calm political environment encouraging voluntary disarmament by factions.
• International and regional consensus on incentive mechanisms to ensure cooperation.
• Security guarantees preventing weapons from returning to factions after partial disarmament.
U.S. statements avoid direct threatening language towards Hamas, framing disarmament as a long-term horizon rather than an immediately enforceable measure, reflecting awareness of the risks of sudden military escalation. Hamas’s weapons remain a source of political and operational power, seen as a safeguard if political processes fail or
occupation policies persist. Local opposition to forcible disarmament is inevitable without a comprehensive political solution guaranteeing Palestinian rights.
Analysts note that forced disarmament could reignite violence, possibly sparking a broader war if factions perceive a direct threat to their existence without real political guarantees. Parallel to efforts in Gaza, the U.S. is advancing an ambitious plan for Lebanon to disarm Hezbollah, a highly sensitive issue that raises fears of potential clashes along the Israeli–Lebanese border.
The international force is designed not as an occupying presence, but as a transitional mechanism bridging ceasefire enforcement and local security capacity.
U.S. STRATEGY
The U.S. approach links Lebanon’s security and stability to weakening the capabilities of non-state armed militias, particularly Hezbollah, considered by Washington to be a major source of regional instability and a persistent threat to Israeli borders. The American plan includes:
• Political pressure on Lebanese authorities to gradually adopt disarmament measures.
• Potential international monitoring along the border to prevent arms smuggling and reduce Hezbollah’s military influence.
• Linking any Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon to a security framework that strengthens the Lebanese state’s sovereignty.
Lebanon’s government has previously agreed on initial goals of the U.S. paper to stabilise the ceasefire, although Hezbollah and Amal ministers walked out in protest, highlighting deep domestic political divisions regarding disarmament. Hezbollah continues to reject any attempt to reduce its arsenal, arguing it affects Lebanon’s sovereignty and defensive capabilities, especially amid perceived Israeli threats. The debate between the government and Hezbollah remains complicated, with disagreements over the definition and implementation of disarmament posing the biggest obstacle. Alternative initiatives, such as “freezing weapons” instead of full disarmament, have emerged as compromise
solutions aimed at preventing weapon use without complete confiscation.
The Gaza and Lebanon files impact not only Washington and local actors but also international politics. In the U.S., voices such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham have called for giving Hamas a timeline to disarm and have even considered potential military action against Hezbollah if it does not relinquish its weapons, reflecting domestic tensions over these issues.
Regionally, U.S. policy reflects a desire to maintain influence in the Middle East after years of relative decline, amid challenges from competing powers such as Iran and Turkey, as well as differing Gulf interests. Some international analysts criticise the U.S. plans for lacking clarity in objectives and implementation mechanisms, which could lead to gaps and violations, potentially igniting renewed violence.
BETWEEN SUCCESS AND DANGERS
The U.S. vision for stabilising Gaza and disarming Hezbollah represents a major strategic gamble in international politics, carrying the potential for significant security reforms in the Middle East, but also surrounded by multiple risks:
• Failure of the international force to establish real security in Gaza could push factions back into violence, threatening broader regional stability.
• Hezbollah’s insistence on retaining its arsenal complicates efforts to convert Lebanon into a state with a monopoly on force.
• Retreating commitments from participating countries weaken the credibility of U.S. plans on the ground, increasing the likelihood of security gaps exploited by armed factions.
The U.S. gamble is not merely a test of the current administration’s Middle East policy but a crossroads that could redraw the regional security map or deepen the cycle of conflict. Every future step will measure Washington’s ability to reconcile the interests of different parties and create a political and security environment conducive to achieving its goals without triggering new conflicts.
(Nadia Hallak, senior correspondent and distinguished journalist from Beirut, Lebanon. She has extensively worked in the Arab region and covers major developments in the Arab world for News Analytics. The views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The News Analytics Herald.)
QUICK INSIGHTS
• An international resolution outlines a structured framework to oversee Gaza’s post-war stabilisation and governance.
• A Board of Peace is proposed to coordinate political authority and security management in Gaza.
• A temporary international force will support ceasefire enforcement while facilitating humanitarian assistance and reconstruction.
• Disarmament of non-governmental armed groups is envisaged through phased, legally defined operational mechanisms.
• Training a capable Palestinian police force is central to ensuring a sustainable transition to local security control.
