EXPERT INTERVIEWS— In the last-gasp negotiations for a Gaza ceasefire underway in Cairo, the negotiating teams reflect the high stakes of the moment. CIA Director William J. Burns is there with White House Middle East Coordinator Brett McGurk; the Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel and Qatari Prime Minister Mohammed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani are at the talks, representing nations with ties to both Israel and Hamas; the Israeli team is led by the heads of the Mossad and Shin Bet security services, David Barnea and Ronan Bar; and a Hamas delegation is led by senior leader Khalil al-Hayya.
“Last-gasp” reflects the view of diplomats from all sides who have been working for months on a complex ceasefire-for-hostages. Last week, in his ninth visit to the region since the war began, U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said these talks may represent “the last opportunity” for a peace agreement.
Stumbling blocks and sticking points abound: Hamas has accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of deliberately sabotaging the talks to drag out the war – and many Israeli citizens have said the same; Israelis have accused Hamas of moving the goalposts in the talks and some analysts (including one of those interviewed for this piece) doubt whether Hamas has any real interest in peace. A key sticking point has been the continuation of an Israeli military presence along the Philadelphi Corridor — a narrow buffer zone that Israel and Egypt established to prevent the smuggling of weapons into Gaza.
But as the Cairo talks convened, U.S. officials said there was still hope for a deal that would include a six-week pause in the war, the release of dozens of hostages, and deliveries of humanitarian aid at a scale that the war has made impossible.
The Cipher Brief spoke to a pair of experts with differing views on the issues and the state of the negotiations: long-time U.S. diplomat and former Ambassador to Oman Gary Grappo, and Clifford May, founder and president of the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a nonpartisan policy institute focused on national security. They spoke with Cipher Brief international correspondent Ia Meurmishvili for The World Deciphered program.
THE EXPERTS
These interviews have been lightly edited for length and clarity.
The Cipher Brief: Where do you think we are in terms of the ceasefire talks?
Grappo: I think we've progressed to the point where virtually all of the easy to moderately difficult issues appear to have been resolved. And now, as in any negotiation, we have reached the most difficult point where really tough issues remain, where both sides seem to be dug in. And the real sticking point at the moment appears to be the question of the Israeli insistence that troops remain in the “Philadelphi corridor” to maintain security in Gaza and prevent the inflow of various war weapons, supplies and equipment, etc. into Gaza. Hamas is obviously resisting that request, for the very reason that the Israelis want to set it up – and that is they rely on the tunnels underneath that corridor to resupply them with their essential goods and weapons and components of weapons.
The corridor runs along the very southern border of Gaza, between Gaza and Egypt. It's very narrow, 300 to 400 feet wide and maybe eight or eight and a half miles long. And Hamas has taken advantage of it by exploiting the access to bring in the goods that they need, mostly through a very complex, extensive tunnel system.
May: What Hamas wants is for the Israelis to stop fighting, for them to give up a few hostages, for them to get thousands of Hamas convicted terrorists out of Israeli prisons and sent back. And they want to make sure they will have enough guns and weapons to continue the fight. What that means, for one thing, is that they want the Israelis to leave the Philadelphi corridor, along the border between Gaza and Egypt. Under that border, the Israelis have found more than 50 tunnels, sophisticated tunnels. So what Hamas is saying is, We get the right to take back over the border with Egypt so we can bring more weapons in and we can continue killing Israelis and we can do what they have promised to do openly many times. And the Israelis are reluctant to agree to that as a deal.
The Cipher Brief: It sounds so fundamental – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that controlling access to Gaza is important to Israel's long-term security, whereas Hamas says that it's a red line for them. So do you think that can be resolved?
Grappo: Well, fortunately we have America's premier negotiator leading at least the American side of the talks, in CIA Director Bill Burns. He has about as thorough an understanding of this issue and the broader issues of the Middle East as anyone in the U.S. government today.
One possibility is for an initial period of time, anywhere from three to six months, during which the Israelis might have the kind of control that they're asking for now. And then the parties would revisit this issue, say 90 days into the ceasefire, to see what kind of solution might be worked out – maybe another force performing that function, maybe an Arab force or maybe even some sort of multilateral force drawn from other countries who'd be willing to perform the task.
It would be a difficult task. A lot of pressure would be on them in order to identify and then interdict anything moving through these tunnel systems.
So that's just one way of maneuvering around this, to find a point on which both sides might find agreement. It will be difficult for Hamas because they're hurting right now. Many of the tunnels have been blocked by the Israelis, but certainly not all. And they're at a point in their evolution or devolution, depending on how you look at their progress in this war, where they are extremely reliant on supplies coming in from elsewhere through these conduits.
May: Hamas is not interested in a ceasefire. Hamas does not want to give up the hostages. It finds them useful. So in a way, this has been a Kabuki theater, I think, for a very long time, because Yahya Sinwar, the Hamas leader, who we believe is still in Gaza in one of the many tunnels that they've built, wants to fight to the end and he wants to fight for victory.
The Cipher Brief: Some reports have said that this current deal does not entail a permanent ceasefire or permanent withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza — and Blinken commented on this, saying that the United States does not support any long-term or permanent occupation of Gaza by the IDF. What’s your view on that?
May: There was one iteration of the deal in which the Israelis said, OK, we will agree to leave heavily populated areas. So that would mean Gaza City. That would probably mean Khan Younis. That would mean Rafah, but it doesn't mean the Philadelphi corridor. It doesn't mean the borderline between Egypt and Gaza.
The Israelis have no interest in occupation. Were they to occupy Gaza, they'd be responsible for a lot they don't want to be responsible for, such as feeding and health care and all that sort of stuff. What they will insist on is that they can continue to identify and destroy terrorist cells planning to attack Israelis. That I think they do want.
They would love for somebody else to take responsibility for Gaza. I think it's possible you can bring the Saudis and the Emiratis and other pragmatic Sunni Arab countries in to do that, but not until Hamas is incapacitated, because the Saudis and the Emiratis and others do not want to find themselves the targets of Hamas terrorists.
The Cipher Brief: Secretary Blinken said that this might be the last chance for the talks. What do you think that statement means, in terms of both U.S. diplomacy and the war?
Grappo: Well, having been a diplomat myself, there is no “last chance”. Diplomats can always come back to the table and discuss and negotiate. Clearly the negotiations have reached a critical stage and the United States may have the impression that maybe the sides have given all they can give.
At the end of the day, there are really only two individuals who matter in these negotiations, (Israeli Prime Minister) Bibi Netanyahu and (Hamas leader) Yahya Sinwar. And both of them seem to have pretty firm positions but could be modified, as I said, with some measures.
Compromise always involves both sides, which is always difficult, particularly on these really nettlesome core issues. And we shouldn't discount the possibility of a compromise, particularly when we have good people – Bill Burns, but also the Egyptians and Qataris working hard to find some bridging proposal that's acceptable to both sides.
It's important to keep in mind also that their respective constituencies are putting a lot of pressure on these individuals in Gaza, and Netanyahu in Israel. What we see taking place in Israel is more public, more visible and better known – a lot of pressure on Bibi to come to this ceasefire. And he's also facing a lot of pressure externally, particularly from the United States. As for Sinwar, it's clear Gazans wanted this war over months ago. And there's growing evidence that Gazans are becoming harshly critical of Sinwar for dragging this out, when the ultimate end is already pretty apparent. So the pressure is there. I think Sinwar has to ask himself, Where does he go from here? Is he going to spend the rest of his days living in a tunnel somewhere beneath Gaza? I'm sure that's weighing on his mind.
The Cipher Brief: Recently six bodies of hostages were recovered. 109 hostages remain and we don't know how many of them are alive. What does this hostage situation mean for Prime Minister Netanyahu and these peace negotiations?
May: Well, it creates a terrible dilemma. Hostages always have. Remember that years ago there was an exchange of one Israeli hostage for about a thousand convicted Hamas and other terrorists. Among those who were released was Sinwar, who initiated the October 7th attacks and who we theoretically are now negotiating with. So it's a big problem.
Yes, the prime minister will want as a priority to get the hostages back. But you don't want to create a situation where more hostages are taken a month later or a year later and you're in the same situation.
So it's not an easy negotiation. If you are a family who has a hostage being held there, you want everything and anything to be done, come hell or high water, pull out all the stops, get my family home. I understand that. I would say if you're the Israeli prime minister, sadly, you have to think about more than that. You have to think not only about the hostages who are being held, you have to think about who else may be killed, who else may be taken hostage as a result of negotiations if you are not competent in negotiating.
I think most Israelis understand two things. One, that Hamas needs to be incapacitated militarily and can't be restored as the governing authority in Gaza. The other is that this is not just about Hamas and not just about Gaza. Behind both Hamas and Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad and the Houthis, is the Islamic Republic of Iran. That is the most serious problem. Naftali Bennett, the prominent Israeli politician and former prime minister, has made the point that the Israelis continually fight the tentacles of the octopus, while the head of the octopus rests and sleeps soundly in Tehran.
I think Israelis increasingly understand that this situation can't go on. Those in Tehran who are behind this, and are funding this, they need to be held to account. That's not so easy to do. It's a big country. It's far away. But I think more and more Israelis are coming to understand that we do need to understand who we're fighting. It is not the Palestinian people. It is not the people of Gaza, and it is not just Hamas. It is an octopus with many tentacles.
The Cipher Brief: Tehran promised retaliation after the killings of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders. We have not seen anything yet. Do you think there will be something — do you think Tehran is waiting for the outcome of these latest talks? What do you make of the pause?
May: Well, we can only do our best to try to understand what debates are taking place within Tehran about what they should do next.
I can see why they might want to retaliate. But then Israel can certainly strike back. Now, the Iranian regime may have decided, Let’s see if we can pressure the U.S. to pressure Israel, saying we won't strike back if you force the Israelis to make a deal that we like because it enables Hamas to continue its war against Israel. That's possible.
It's also possible they’re thinking, We don't want to attack Israel now because we're not sure what Israel will do in retaliation for such an attack, and we're not prepared to defend ourselves and things could get worse. Also, we're making progress towards the development of nuclear weapons and missiles that can deliver them. If the Israelis have a good excuse to attack, they could at least set back that process. We don't want that to happen either. So there's a hard decision-making process going on in Tehran about what's in their interest, best interest to do.
Grappo: I think one of the reasons we have not seen Iran or Hezbollah respond to the killings of (Hamas leader Ismail) Haniyeh and Fouad Shukar, the Hezbollah military leader, is simply because they don't want to fan the flames in Gaza. They would like to see a ceasefire, even if they may not say it publicly. They want to see the temperature lowered in the region.
Iran is recognizing that this effort to employ their proxies to go after their enemies is becoming less effective, and that the possibility of conflict is coming closer and closer to Iran. And we have seen this now with the Israeli response to the Iranian attack in April, where the Israelis sent rockets to destroy a radar facility with a very precise strike, one that probably sent a very clear message to Iran, we can hit anywhere in your country with very powerful weapons. And I think everyone in Iran probably took note of that. And so Iranians have to calibrate very carefully now how they respond to the Haniyeh killing in their capital in a highly secure facility.
And one way to defuse that is if a ceasefire is achieved and the Iranians can arguably say, Look, we have a ceasefire. We want to keep the temperature down in the region. They don't have to say they're not going to respond – but they're not going to respond for now and see how this thing rides out.
Meanwhile, they can play a somewhat effective psychological game with the Israelis, where there is an attack looming over Israel. And so the Israelis will have to be really on their guard for some time. And in the meantime, they can let the negotiations play out, hopefully with an end state that means a ceasefire.
The Cipher Brief: How do you view America's policy towards Iran at this point? Do you think it's effective?
Grappo: I think the Iranians are becoming increasingly aware that the United States may have reached the end of its patience with the regime when it comes to this war of their proxies against us, against Israel, against international commerce in terms of the Houthi attacks on commercial vessels transiting the Red Sea. And I would not be surprised if we had delivered a message to Iran, pointedly warning them that another attack that produces American casualties, and especially an American death, will meet with a direct American response on an Iranian target that is in Iran.
The Iranians can't be blind to this. They know that the United States possesses overwhelming force and could do extraordinary damage to Iran. And now, with the deployment of something like 20 U.S. naval vessels in the Indian Ocean just off of Iran, as well as the Eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Southern Lebanon, all of that is to say that the United States can bring just overwhelming power to any potential conflict and inflict devastating damage in a very short period of time. And I think that's the real message for the Iranians. They are going to have to be extraordinarily careful in how they proceed if they decide to respond.
May: The rulers in Tehran are now in an alliance with Moscow and with Beijing. And that is an axis of aggressors that the U.S. and others in the free world need to understand exists and is as anti-American and anti-free world as anything we've ever seen during the Cold War.
The Cipher Brief: The Ukraine war really demonstrated that connection between China, Iran and Russia.
May: Iran is helping Russia against Ukraine right now. And consider — what does the Islamic Republic of Iran have in common with the neo-imperialists of Moscow? Well, they both want a new world order in which they can establish their own empires or reestablish their own empires as they see it. We in the West need to understand that is the reality we face.
The Cipher Brief: How do you see America's role in resolving this?
May: America has been, I would say, supportive but equivocal in its support for Israel as it's been supportive but equivocal in its support for Ukraine. And I was recently in Taiwan, and I would say the Taiwanese are fearful that the U.S. will be supportive but equivocal in its support for Taiwan.
I think the U .S. needs to act as a superpower, needs to make sure that it has both the will and the capability and communicates that to deter adversaries, to deter those authoritarian powers that intend to expand their empires by wiping from the face of the earth in various ways, democratic societies. Ukraine is a fledgling democracy. Taiwan is an accomplished democracy. Israel is an accomplished democracy. Putin wants to subjugate the Ukrainians. Xi Jinping wants to subjugate the Taiwanese. The supreme ruler of Iran wants to exterminate the Israelis. That's the reality. The U.S. as leader of the free world needs to understand that reality and begin to take steps to make sure that the free world endures.
The Cipher Brief: Do you think a ceasefire or permanent truce between Israel and Hamas is possible?
May: I don't think it's possible with Hamas. I think Hamas is very clear. It's clear in its charter. It's clear in everything it has said. Hamas will not, for reasons that are theological as much as ideological, make peace with Israel. They might be able to go into a hudna, which is a term for a temporary truce, while they rebuild themselves for the next round of fighting.
The Israelis need to rethink their strategy. For a long time, they thought, All we need to do, the phrase was, “mow the lawn.” Every so often, Hamas would fire missiles. Israel’s Iron Dome (defense system) would knock them down. Maybe Hamas got a little more aggressive. The Israelis would very carefully target Hamas leaders or Hamas command and control headquarters and then say, OK, it's over for now. Just every so often the grass gets too tall. You mow it back.
That was a flawed strategy. The Israelis apparently didn't understand or didn't act upon the knowledge that Hamas was building an underground fortress so that it could initiate a war, hide in the tunnels, and use civilians as human shields in the secure knowledge that most of the media would say look at the terrible damage Israel is doing.
Post-Hamas, there may be Palestinian leaders with whom Israel can make peace, as the Israelis have made peace under the Abraham Accords with a number of pragmatic Sunni Arab countries.
Who’s Reading this? More than 500K of the most influential national security experts in the world. Need full access to what the Experts are reading?
It’s not just for the President anymore. Cipher Brief Subscriber+Members have access to their own Open Source Daily Brief, keeping you up to date on global events impacting national security. It pays to be a Subscriber+Member.
