EXPERT Q&A — The Cipher Brief turned to Bruce Hoffman, a former director of Georgetown University’s Center for Security Studies, for his assessment of President Donald Trump’s proposal to “take over” Gaza, and what it may mean for the future of the war-ravaged territory. Hoffman called the idea “fantastical,” but he also said the statements might serve as a catalyst for other, more feasible ideas for reconstruction and governance in the Gaza Strip. “I’m willing to suspend disbelief or be optimistic that this could conceivably set in motion a chain of events that goes in a different direction or takes a different fork in the road,” Hoffman said. “And that could stimulate the kind of thinking and discussion that does produce a much more workable and conceivable plan.”
Hoffman spoke with Cipher Brief Managing Editor Tom Nagorski. Their conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Nagorski: What was your initial reaction to the president’s proposals, and what they might mean for Gaza’s future?
Hoffman: My first-blush reaction was that just about every U.S. president this century has tried to extricate the United States from the Middle East. This seemed to be almost calling to go in the opposite direction, for almost certainly a permanent entanglement given the broad contours of how the president described his plan.
More to the point though, what struck me really is that for months now, the Israeli Minister for Strategic Affairs, Ron Dermer, probably Prime Minister Netanyahu’s closest confidant, has been arguing – quite cogently, I think – that there were three steps that are needed in Gaza: The militarization, which you could argue has largely been accomplished, but is still incomplete, because certainly the display of Hamas fighters adorned in black and driving brand new pickups, all with very well-polished and oiled semi-automatic weapons, shows that the demilitarization has progressed but is not complete. He then said that Gaza had to be deradicalized. And then, once those first two steps or phases were accomplished, then it could be developed. So listening to the president, I thought we almost jumped to the third step and left out the middle one, and the first one that is only partially completed.
Certainly everyone wants to develop Gaza and to reverse the unmitigated damage and destruction that we’ve seen over the past 16 months. But to do so, I think everyone agrees that there has to be security. And in the 21st century, depopulating a 140-mile square area with two million people, it is just not going to happen. Historically, at the end of World War I, Turkey cleansed its lands of 1.6 million Greeks. Certainly in 1947, with the creation of Pakistan and India, the partition of the old British Raj, there were tremendous population transfers. But in my view, that’s an historical artifact that would be very difficult to resurrect in this century for exactly the reasons that we hear, unless it were voluntary. And maybe conceivably there are people that might be persuaded to relocate elsewhere, given the Palestinians’ fraught history. I don’t think it’s terribly likely that it would be a majority of them. And basically, at the point of whose guns or whose bayonets is Gaza going to be depopulated? It is something that is very, very difficult to contemplate.
Nagorski: Do you believe there is any utility in this out-of-the-box thinking?
Hoffman: There’s clearly a new status quo in the Middle East. That region is completely different than it was 16 months ago on October 6th, 2023. And I think [Trump] was reflecting some facts on the ground as it were, that the status quo has changed and there can’t be a return to the status quo attitude. Israel is not going to tolerate a Gaza run by Hamas existing any longer on its border.
I think Trump is making the statement that there’s a new status quo, and that we have to now divine how to achieve that and how to achieve that in a way that allows the Palestinians to live in dignity, that respects their rights, but also guarantees Israel its security. And when you face it, many of the other proposals and projects haven’t gone anywhere. This is the president’s attempt to think outside of the box, to push the envelope and to provoke other people into coming up with their own plans that probably might be more realistic and even better than his. But they’re not going to do so without him prodding and provoking them to do so.
Gaza has been reduced to rubble. So how do you rebuild that? The president’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, has said it would take 10 to 15 years. I’m not sure if that’s necessarily accurate, but he’s probably not off by very much. So in practical terms, how do you rebuild Gaza? I would argue there has to be some security guarantees or commitments that are going to bring in U.S. partners. And that really is, to me, what’s missing from what the president said. The United States cannot impose its will on the Middle East. And whenever it has attempted to do so, especially unilaterally, it’s ended disastrously. If there is going to be this future vision for Gaza, it can only be undertaken in concert with Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Egypt, Jordan, Turkey as well. And these are all close friends and allies of the United States. But especially an issue as complex and complicated as Gaza cannot be solved by the U.S. alone or by a presidential order. It really has to be undertaken in consultation with our allies. And they’re not going to come involved unless they’re assured of the security.
Nagorski: From your perspective of worrying about radicalization and terrorist groups and so forth, are you concerned about the President’s statements inspiring jihadist groups and potential recruits?
Hoffman: I don’t think America’s enemies need any more reasons to attack us. There’s been an upsurge, for instance, in ISIS attacks over the past year, especially attacks by ISIS-K, which was a few years ago amongst the more inconsequential branches that has now become one capable of acting on a global canvas. There’s no shortage of reasons to attack the United States.
I think that on the one hand, the president recognizes that for there to be progress, we have to break the stranglehold that Hamas has over the Palestinian people in Gaza for peace to be achieved. This was one idea to achieve that.
The United States can act independently here, but that would of course be like waving a red flag to radicals, if this was just a U.S.-imposed plan. The only thing that will work in the Middle East is the consent, firstly, of the Palestinian people themselves about their future, but also the consent of our most important friends and allies and the most powerful regional states who have an influence and have a stake in what’s happening. And that’s what’s missing right now.
Nagorski: There has been a lot of talk that Trump was interested in finally bringing the Saudi-Israeli partnership to fruition. But the Saudis are firmly opposed to this Gaza plan. How important is it to have the Saudis on board with whatever is coming next?
Hoffman: It’s absolutely crucial and essential. Even for Israel, Saudi recognition is the prize that Israel is prepared to make a variety of concessions about because it is so important. In the president’s style, this was probably meant to provoke deeper thinking on this issue, perhaps going back years ago, to when the Abraham Accords were also viewed as something that was pie in the sky, that could never be realized [but] they achieved with four key actors in the region. On the eve of October 7th, it seemed that it was within reach that Saudi Arabia might join them.
So, I think Saudi Arabia remains absolutely a key player because this was, of course, one of the central foreign policy accomplishments of the first Trump administration. [A Saudi-Israeli deal] would be the cornerstone of a second administration. They’re enormously important and what they have to say is listened to in Washington.
Nagorski: Nothing else has really worked. Do you think this will?
Hoffman: No, because I think it’s fantastical for all the reasons that many people have said. But I’m willing to suspend disbelief or be optimistic that this could conceivably set in motion a chain of events that goes in a different direction or takes a different fork in the road. And that could stimulate the kind of thinking and discussion that does produce a much more workable and conceivable plan.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to [email protected] for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
