Follow us on social

Gaza GHF food distribution

Charges of US contractor abuse in Gaza recalls ugly Blackwater era

Reports indicate American mercenaries guarding aid sites are using live ammo and shooting into crowds of desperate Palestinians

Analysis | QiOSK

The U.S. is once again entangled in a contractor scandal in a combat zone — this time in Gaza.

During the Iraq War, the name Blackwater became shorthand for contractor abuse after the 2007 Nisour Square massacre, where 17 civilians were killed. Since then, Washington has leaned heavily on private contractors, primarily for logistics, but also for security roles that keep U.S. forces out of direct sight.

“Contractor” has at times become a sanitized term for “mercenary” in the United States, yet the world sees them much like Russia’s Wagner Group: extensions of state power. If the latest reports of abuse are true, the damage won’t be limited to Gaza — it will land squarely on America’s credibility. Washington can’t subcontract responsibility.

There were already serious concerns about the practices and effectiveness of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF). But the current scandal broke when two U.S. contractors working at aid distribution sites under GHF told the Associated Press — on condition of anonymity — that some of their colleagues were using live ammunition, stun grenades, and pepper spray against Palestinians trying to get food.

The contractors provided disturbing video and photo evidence, claiming that poorly trained guards with little oversight were sometimes firing directly toward the crowd.

GHF and its subcontractor, Safe Reach Solutions, deny any serious injuries and insist that live fire was used only as a warning to control crowds. However, both the contractors’ accounts and the footage suggest otherwise. Launched in February 2025 to replace the U.N. aid system amid an Israeli blockade, the U.S.-backed GHF has already seen nearly one-third of its June distributions result in injuries, according to internal reports.

Moreover, this isn’t the first time the American contractors made headlines at the sites, including a meltdown when the aid centers were first launched.

Externally, the Gaza Health Ministry has reported more than 600 Palestinian deaths and 4,200 wounded at these aid centers since they opened. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported last week, based on IDF soldier interviews, that forces were ordered to deliberately shoot at unarmed Gazans at these sites, even when no threat was present.

The implications for the U.S. are severe — not only does it raise the possibility that American contractors are directly harming or even killing Palestinian civilians, but it also revives the controversial precedent of outsourcing combat-zone roles. There’s a reason the United Nations and not armed U.S. contractors was once tasked with aid distribution. The primary victims, of course, are Palestinians being hurt or terrorized while trying to feed their families. But the reputational and moral cost to the United States is real, as is the erosion of norms, like the basic one that you don’t shoot at starving people.

You can watch the AP’s full video here.

For its part the GHF has released a statement on the allegations in the AP story:

“GHF launched an immediate investigation when the Associated Press first brought these allegations to our attention. Based on time-stamped video footage and sworn witness statements, we have concluded that the claims in the AP’s story are categorically false. At no point were civilians under fire at a GHF distribution site. The gunfire heard in the video was confirmed to have originated from the IDF, who was outside the immediate vicinity of the GHF distribution site. It was not directed at individuals, and no one was shot or injured.


Top photo credit: Screengrab of AP report on shootings at Gaza Humanitarian Foundation distribution sites in Gaza
Analysis | QiOSK
Ratcliffe Gabbard
Top image credit: Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and CIA director John Ratcliffe join a meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump and his intelligence team in the Situation Room at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 21, 2025. The White House/Handout via REUTERS

Trump's use and misuse of Iran intel

Middle East

President Donald Trump has twice, within the space of a week, been at odds with U.S. intelligence agencies on issues involving Iran’s nuclear program. In each instance, Trump was pushing his preferred narrative, but the substantive differences in the two cases were in opposite directions.

Before the United States joined Israel’s attack on Iran, Trump dismissed earlier testimony by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, in which she presented the intelligence community’s judgment that “Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003.” Questioned about this testimony, Trump said, “she’s wrong.”

keep readingShow less
Mohammad Bin Salman Trump Ayatollah Khomenei
Top photo credit: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad Bin Salman (President of the Russian Federation/Wikimedia Commons); U.S. President Donald Trump (Gage Skidmore/Flickr) and Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei (Wikimedia Commons)

Let's make a deal: Enrichment path that both Iran, US can agree on

Middle East

The recent conflict, a direct confrontation that pitted Iran against Israel and drew in U.S. B-2 bombers, has likely rendered the previous diplomatic playbook for Tehran's nuclear program obsolete.

The zero-sum debates concerning uranium enrichment that once defined that framework now represent an increasingly unworkable approach.

Although a regional nuclear consortium had been previously advanced as a theoretical alternative, the collapse of talks as a result of military action against Iran now positions it as the most compelling path forward for all parties.

Before the war, Iran was already suggesting a joint uranium enrichment facility with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) on Iranian soil. For Iran, this framework could achieve its primary goal: the preservation of a domestic nuclear program and, crucially, its demand to maintain some enrichment on its own territory. The added benefit is that it embeds Iran within a regional security architecture that provides a buffer against unilateral attack.

For Gulf actors, it offers unprecedented transparency and a degree of control over their rival-turned-friend’s nuclear activities, a far better outcome than a possible covert Iranian breakout. For a Trump administration focused on deals, it offers a tangible, multilateral framework that can be sold as a blueprint for regional stability.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: White House April 7, 2025

Polls: Americans don't support Trump's war on Iran

Military Industrial Complex

While there are serious doubts about the accuracy of President Donald Trump’s claims about the effectiveness of his attacks on Iranian nuclear sites, the U.S./Israeli war on Iran has provided fresh and abundant evidence of widespread opposition to war in the United States.

With a tenuous ceasefire currently holding, several nationwide surveys suggest Trump’s attack, which plunged the country into yet another offensive war in the Middle East, has been broadly unpopular across the country.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.