Follow us on social

Military pier project in Gaza could be 'on ice'

Military pier project in Gaza could be 'on ice'

Killings cast pall on prospects for US aid plan, which critics say would needlessly put troops and others at risk

Analysis | QiOSK

The Israeli killing of seven international aid workers this week has already had a chilling effect on the prospects of President Joe Biden’s aid surge project, which is supposed to deploy the U.S. military to build a causeway off the coast of Gaza to deliver food into the strip, ostensibly next month.

Meanwhile, fielding questions from reporters at the White House yesterday after the killing of the World Central Kitchen workers, spokeswoman Karine Jean-Pierre said the temporary pier would be operational “in a couple of weeks.”

This is highly ambitious and likely not true. An Army spokesman claims the ships carrying the supplies for both the floating pier and the causeway that is supposed to be anchored to the yet-to-be-known location on the Gaza beach are “streaming” (POLITICO’s words, more on that below) toward the region, but they still have to build the infrastructure, and most estimates don’t expect completion until May.

More importantly, POLITICO reports that the United Nations' World Food Programme (WFP) was likely tapped by the U.S. to deliver the aid into Gaza once it the hit the beach, but is now having second thoughts because of the World Central Kitchen killings. As reported, Chef Jose Andrés’s organization had been coordinating for months with the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), and their convoy was known to the IDF the day of the deadly strikes. They were targeted and blown to bits anyway.

Now, WFP is denying there was any formal agreement between the aid organization and the U.S., and says it wants more assurances of its people’s safety before going ahead with any such contract.

“Any decision regarding the UN participation in the maritime corridor setup needs to be fully agreed on with the humanitarian agencies operating in Gaza, under conditions that allow for safe, sustained and scaled-up assistance to reach people in need,” Steve Taravella, a spokesman for the WFP said Wednesday.

This comes amid public concerns by former military officials that the project leaves U.S. soldiers vulnerable as they build the causeway, anchor it, and engage partners in the deliveries from Cyprus to Gaza. There are unconfirmed reports that the IDF and private contractors would provide a “security bubble” on the ground, but this week’s killings, plus numerous reports about IDF “kill zones” and AI targeting, not to mention the fact that it is an active war zone, give no confidence to observers who are wondering why the administration does not press Israel to just open up existing aid checkpoints on land instead.

Retired Naval officer Jerry Hendrix was quoted in the Washington Post saying the whole causeway project would leave U.S. troops “highly vulnerable” and calling the plan “stupid.”

Interestingly, the POLITICO story quoted former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Mick Mulroy without noting he was vice president of Fogbow, which is the private company supposedly tapped to help the U.S. military provide logistics and security for the project, according to unconfirmed reports. Even he thinks the World Central Kitchen killings could have “a chilling effect on who will volunteer, who will deliver aid in Gaza,” he told POLITICO.

Mike DiMino, a former CIA analyst and fellow at Defense Priorities, agrees. “The WCK strike completely vindicates the immense and varied potential risks to U.S. personnel that we have repeatedly highlighted,” he told RS Wednesday. “What if (American citizens) are delivering aid ashore, and the IDF suspected a terrorist was among them? Or 'confused' armed security contractors for Hamas operatives? We found out yesterday.”

“Who will want to volunteer for that job now? Looks like the deal is on ice. I'm hoping, frankly, that the WCK incident will kill the pier idea entirely, though I won't hold my breath.”

As for the ships “streaming” into the region, according to satellite readings today only one is within range of Cyrpus, which is where the Army and Navy will begin the process. The fastest among them, the USN Roy Benavidez, is docked in Crete. The USAV Frank Besson, which left the U.S. first on March 10, is off the coast of Algeria. The smaller Army craft Monterrey, Wilson Wharf, Matamoros, and Loux, are now sailing through the Canary Islands in the Atlantic. The Naval vessel Bobo is still in Jacksonville, Florida, and the Lopez hasn’t reached Bermuda yet.

At this rate the Besson will get to Cyprus first (after Benavidez), but not for another week, at least.


CAMP PENDLETON, Calif. (July 24, 2008) Army Soldiers prepare to off load the floating Causeway for Joint Logistics off the Shore (JLOTS) at Red Beach at Camp Pendleton. JLOTS is a joint U.S. military operation aimed at preparing amphibious assault landings. This is the first JLOTS event at Camp Pendleton since 2002. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Private 1st Class Jeremy Harris/Released)

Analysis | QiOSK
Trump ASEAN
Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump looks at Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., next to Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim when posing for a family photo with leaders at the ASEAN Summit in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, October 26, 2025. Vincent Thian/Pool via REUTERS

‘America First’ meets ‘ASEAN Way’ in Kuala Lumpur

Asia-Pacific

The 2025 ASEAN and East Asia Summits in Kuala Lumpur beginning today are set to be consequential multilateral gatherings — defining not only ASEAN’s internal cohesion but also the shape of U.S.–China relations in the Indo-Pacific.

President Donald Trump’s participation will be the first by a U.S. president in an ASEAN-led summit since 2022. President Biden skipped the last two such summits in 2023 and 2024, sending then-Vice President Harris instead.

keep readingShow less
iran, china, russia
Top photo credit: Top image credit: Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov and and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi shake hands as Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu looks on during their meet with reporters after their meeting at Diaoyutai State Guest House on March 14, 2025 in Beijing, China. Lintao Zhang/Pool via REUTERS

'Annulled'! Russia won't abide snapback sanctions on Iran

Middle East

“A raider attack on the U.N. Security Council.” This was the explosive accusation leveled by Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov this week. His target was the U.N. Secretariat and Western powers, whom he blamed for what Russia sees as an illegitimate attempt to restore the nuclear-related international sanctions on Iran.

Beyond the fiery rhetoric, Ryabkov’s statement contained a message: Russia, he said, now considers all pre-2015 U.N. sanctions on Iran, snapped back by the European signatories of the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA) — the United Kingdom, France, Germany — “annulled.” Moscow will deepen its military-technical cooperation with Tehran accordingly, according to Ryabkov.

This is more than a diplomatic spat; it is the formal announcement of a split in international legal reality. The world’s major powers are now operating under two irreconcilable interpretations of international law. On one side, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and Germany assert that the sanctions snapback mechanism of the JCPOA was legitimately triggered for Iran’s alleged violations. On the other, Iran, Russia, and China reject this as an illegitimate procedural act.

This schism was not inevitable, and its origin reveals a profound incongruence. The Western powers that most frequently appeal to the sanctity of the "rules-based international order" and international law have, in this instance, taken an action whose effects fundamentally undermine it. By pushing through a legal maneuver that a significant part of the Security Council considers illegitimate, they have ushered the world into a new and more dangerous state. The predictable, if imperfect, framework of universally recognized Security Council decisions is being replaced by a system where legal facts are determined by political interests espoused by competing power blocs.

This rupture followed a deliberate Western choice to reject compromises in a stand-off with Iran. While Iran was in a technical violation of the provisions of the JCPOA — by, notably, amassing a stockpile of highly enriched uranium (up to 60% as opposed to the 3.67% for a civilian use permissible under the JCPOA), there was a chance to avert the crisis. In the critical weeks leading to the snapback, Iran had signaled concessions in talks with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Cairo, in terms of renewing cooperation with the U.N. nuclear watchdog’s inspectors.

keep readingShow less
On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants
Top Photo Credit: (Official White House Photo by Molly Riley)

On Ukraine and Venezuela, Trump needs to dump the sycophants

Europe

While diplomats labored to produce the Dayton Accords in 1995, then-Secretary of Defense Bill Perry advised, “No agreement is better than a bad agreement.” Given that Washington’s allies in London, Paris, Berlin and Warsaw are opposed to any outcome that might end the war in Ukraine, no agreement may be preferable. But for President Trump, there is no point in equating the illusion of peace in Ukraine with a meaningless ceasefire that settles nothing.

Today, Ukraine is mired in corruption, starting at the very highest levels of the administration in Kyiv. Sending $175 billion of borrowed money there "for however long it takes" has turned out to be worse than reckless. The U.S. national sovereign debt is surging to nearly $38 trillion and rising by $425 billion with each passing month. President Trump needs to turn his attention away from funding Joe Biden’s wars and instead focus on the faltering American economy.

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.