Follow us on social

google cta
Trump can't 'clean out' Gaza without destabilizing entire region

Trump can't 'clean out' Gaza without destabilizing entire region

Not only is forced displacement a war crime, but Arab monarchies, particularly Jordan, could collapse from the pressure

Analysis | QiOSK
google cta
google cta

President Trump told reporters on Air Force One this weekend that he wants Egypt, Jordan, and other Arab countries to take refugees from Gaza in order to “just clean out that whole thing.” Any forced repatriation of Palestinians would constitute the war crime of ethnic cleansing, although international law has not historically governed Israel or the United States’ treatment of Palestinians.

Yet if Trump were to greenlight such a plan, the result would be extreme destabilization of neighboring states, which would contradict Trump’s stated goal of bringing peace to the Middle East.

As I wrote in a recent brief for the Quincy Institute, Jordan in particular would face a level of upheaval that could bring down King Abdullah II and the Hashemite monarchy that has long worked with the U.S. and Israel. If Trump were to facilitate the displacement of Palestinians into Jordan, Washington could lose an ally and gain an enemy, or at best a government with no interest in working with Tel Aviv or Washington.

Jordan signed a peace treaty with Israel in 1994. A key aspect of the treaty was that Israel would not displace Palestinians into Jordan. When I visited Jordan last fall, many former officials expressed concern that they no longer had a partner in the Israeli government and that Netanyahu was preparing to violate the treaty. If Israel were to do so by forcing Palestinians across the border, King Abdullah of Jordan would either have to respond — which would result in the loss of U.S. assistance that helps Abdullah maintain his throne — or allow the war crime to proceed, which could result in his overthrow.

The Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood, which won a plurality of seats in September’s parliamentary election, would be the organization best placed to take control. Although the Brotherhood historically acted as a “loyal opposition” to the Hashemite kings, in recent years it has faced intensified repression and has responded by adopting more aggressive positions, including on the question of Palestine.

Regardless of whether the Brotherhood or another movement took control of Jordan in the aftermath of the Hashemites’ ouster, the resulting government would be extremely pro-Palestine, reflecting the sentiments of Jordanians, over half of whom are originally Palestinian. The depth of support for Palestine is reflected in the mass boycott of American and European products and businesses, as well as in recent attacks by Jordanians on the Israeli border and embassy.

Even a staunch ally of President Trump, Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) expressed confusion at Trump’s remarks about forcing U.S. partners to accept Palestinian refugees: “I don't know what he's talking about. But go talk to MBS, go talk to [the] UAE, go talk to Egypt,” Graham said. “What is their plan for the Palestinians? Do they want them all to leave?”

Trump may view the governments of Jordan and Egypt as reliant on the U.S. and therefore in no position to refuse. Trump has already frozen all foreign assistance except that designated for Israel and Egypt, perhaps to remind Abdullah of his status as dependent. Yet neither Trump nor the Israeli government would be well served by facilitating Abdullah’s downfall and his replacement with a less compliant alternative.

Early in Israel’s war on Gaza, members of Congress reviewed a plan that would have required U.S. partners to accept Palestinian refugees. Interestingly, this plan focused on Egypt, Turkey, Iraq, and Yemen receiving refugees, but not Jordan. This may have reflected a deeper historical understanding that displacing Palestinians into Jordan has not previously facilitated a resolution of the Palestinian issue.

A post on X from the Palestinian human rights activist and former Minister of Education under the PLO Hanan Ashrawi stated, “Note to President Trump: Palestine, including Gaza, the West Bank & Jerusalem, is the land of the Palestinian people […] To ethnically cleanse them is not only inhuman & a war crime, but it also presents a dangerous threat to the stability of the whole region & to the sovereignty of neighbouring states. That’s how to start wars, not end them.”

If Trump wishes to deliver on his stated plan to bring peace to the region, destabilizing U.S. partners like Jordan and Egypt would do the opposite.


Top photo credit: U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters as they ask questions aboard Air Force One during a flight from Las Vegas, Nevada, to Miami, Florida, U.S., January 25, 2025. REUTERS/Leah Millis
google cta
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports
Top image credit: A large oil tanker transits the Strait of Hormuz. (Shutterstock/ Clare Louise Jackson)

Iran says ‘no ship is allowed to pass’ Strait of Hormuz: Reports

QiOSK

Hours after the U.S. and Israel launched a campaign of airstrikes across Iran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps is warning vessels in the Persian Gulf via radio that “no ship is allowed to pass the Strait of Hormuz,” according to a report from Reuters.

The news suggests that Iran is ready to pull out all the stops in its response to the U.S.-Israeli barrage, which President Donald Trump says is aimed at toppling the Iranian regime. A full shutdown of the Strait of Hormuz would cause an international crisis given that 20% of the world’s oil passes through the narrow channel. Financial analysts estimate that even one day of a full blockade could cause global oil prices to double from $66 per barrel to more than $120.

keep readingShow less
What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means
Top image credit: FILE PHOTO: Afghan Taliban fighters patrol near the Afghanistan-Pakistan border in Spin Boldak, Kandahar Province, following exchanges of fire between Pakistani and Afghan forces in Afghanistan, October 15, 2025. REUTERS/Stringer

What Pakistan's 'open war' on Taliban in Afghanistan really means

QiOSK

Pakistan’s airstrikes on Kabul and Kandahar over the last 24 hours are nothing new. Islamabad has carried out strikes inside Afghanistan several times since the Taliban’s return to power. Pakistan claimed that the Afghan Taliban used drones to conduct strikes in Pakistan.

What distinguishes this latest episode is the rhetorical escalation, with Pakistani officials openly referring to the action as “open war.” While the language grabbed international headlines, it is best understood as part of a managed escalation designed to signal resolve without crossing red lines that would make de-escalation impossible.

keep readingShow less
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

'Going it alone' approach will leave one person holding the Iran bag

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


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.