Follow us on social

google cta
By the numbers: US Gaza pier project appears sunk

By the numbers: US Gaza pier project appears sunk

You decide whether it was worth it

Reporting | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

On Friday, U.S. officials said that the pier built in May to distribute humanitarian aid into the Gaza Strip was once again suspending operations — this time potentially for good.

The Biden administration has praised the project, but critics have called it “humanitarian theater,” and a "failure," as it's proven to be wholly inadequate for providing assistance to Gaza, where famine is looming and hospitals are unable to operate.

RS has been raising concerns about the project, mainly the costs, dangers, and lack of effectiveness associated with it. Moreover, asking why the White House chose this risky option instead of the far simpler solution of pressuring Israel to open humanitarian crossings and protect aid workers inside the Strip.

Today we let the numbers associated with this seemingly ill-fated venture do the talking:

69: It took 69 days in between Biden’s announcement during the State of the Union that the U.S. military would build “temporary pier in the Mediterranean on the Gaza coast that can receive large ships carrying food, war, medicine and temporary shelters … and ensure that humanitarian workers aren’t caught in the crossfire,” and the day that the pier was completed. Two days after construction concluded, on May 17, the first trucks rolled down the pier.

4: The U.S. was forced to halt operations 4 different times since May 17, mostly due to weather events. Operations were suspended between May 28 and June 7; June 9-10; June 15-20; and finally on June 28.

47 and 25, and 19: In the 47 days since the pier was built it was only operational for 25 of them, and aid only came in, at most, on 19 of those days.

That means that the U.S. military only delivered aid through the port for less than half of the total possible days.

For a significant portion of this timeframe — between June 9 and June 28 — the U.N. World Food Programme did not distribute any of the goods that were piling up on shore, due to fears that they could be targeted by Israeli air strikes and other security fears.

19.4: The pier was used to get approximately 19.4 million pounds of food into Gaza. It is unclear exactly how much of that aid has made its way to the suffering population — though a “vast majority” of it was never distributed.

NBC News reported on the day that the U.N. resumed food distribution that roughly 15 million pounds of food and other aid materials had accumulated on the shore during the days when the pier was operational but no aid was being given to Gazans. If this total was included in the 19.4 million pound estimate, that means that as little as 4.4 million pounds may have actually been moved into the Strip.

Even if the entirety of 19.4 million pounds had been distributed to the people, that would still represent a far from sufficient total. Based on past estimates from both the Israeli government and UNRWA, 19.4 million pounds would translate to roughly 646 truckloads in the last month and a half. Experts have said that somewhere between 300 and 600 truckloads worth of aid are needed every day in order to avoid a full-blown famine in Gaza.

320 (or 230): When the construction for the pier began in April, the Pentagon anticipated a $320 million price tag to build it and operate it for 90 days. In June, DOD revised the estimate down to $230 million, because “costs for contracted trucks, drivers and commercial vessels were lower than expected and the United Kingdom contributed a berthing vessel for soldiers and sailors.”

The final figure could end up being slightly different, since the pier has undergone a series of repairs (the first set of repairs cost roughly $22 million), and because, if operations are indeed halted, the pier would have operated for less than half of the original 90-day plan.






google cta
Reporting | QiOSK
Mbs-mbz-scaled
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan receives Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the Presidential Airport in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates November 27, 2019. WAM/Handout via REUTERS

Is the US goading Arab states to join war against Iran?

QiOSK

On Sunday, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Mike Waltz told ABC News that Arab Gulf states may soon step up their involvement in the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. “I expect that you'll see additional diplomatic and possibly military action from them in the coming days and weeks,” Waltz said.

Then, on Monday morning, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) slammed Saudi Arabia for staying out of the war even as “Americans are dying and the U.S. is spending billions” of dollars to conduct regime change in Iran. “If you are not willing to use your military now, when are you willing to use it?” Graham asked. “Hopefully this changes soon. If not, consequences will follow.”

keep readingShow less
Why Tehran may have time on its side
Top image credit: Iranian army military personnel stand at attention under a banner featuring an image of an Iranian-made unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) during a military parade commemorating the anniversary of Army Day outside the Shrine of Iran's late leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in the south of Tehran, Iran, on April 18, 2025. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto)

Why Tehran may have time on its side

QiOSK

A provocative calculus by Anusar Farrouqui (“policytensor”) has been circulating on X and in more exhaustive form on the author’s Substack. It purports to demonstrate a sobering reality: in a high-intensity U.S.-Iran conflict, the United States may be unable to suppress Iranian drone production quickly enough to prevent a strategically consequential period of regional devastation.

The argument is framed through a quantitative lens, carrying the seductive appeal of mathematical precision. It arranges variables—such as U.S. sortie rates and degradation efficiency against Iranian repair cycles and rebuild speeds—to suggest a "sustainable firing rate." The implication is that Iran could maintain a persistent strike capability long enough to exhaust American political patience, forcing Washington toward a premature declaration of success or an unfavorable ceasefire.

keep readingShow less
Witkoff Kushner Ukraine
Top photo credit: U.S. Special Envoy Steve Witkoff and U.S. businessman Jared Kushner deliver a press conference upon the signing of the declaration on deploying post-ceasefire force in Ukraine during the so-called 'Coalition of the Willing' summit, at the Elysee Palace in Paris, France, January 6, 2026. Ludovic Marin/Pool via REUTERS

Is Ukraine peace toast, now that the Middle East is on fire?

Europe

President Donald Trump came into office promising to end wars, but last week, he instead started a new one, when he ordered what the White House is calling a “proactive defensive” operation in response to Iran’s “imminent threat.”

The onset of yet another U.S.-initiated conflict in the Middle East deals a double blow to Trump’s ambitions as a peacemaker. It has obviously derailed, perhaps permanently, the on-and-off talks between Tehran and Washington over the future of Iran’s nuclear program. But it is also likely to interfere with another Trump priority: ending the four-year-long war between Russia and Ukraine.

keep readingShow less
google cta
Want more of our stories on Google?
Click here to make us a Preferred Source.

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.