Follow us on social

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

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
Analysis | QiOSK
Iran
Top image credit: An Iranian man (not pictured) carries a portrait of the former commander of the IRGC Aerospace Forces, Brigadier General Amir Ali Hajizadeh, and participates in a funeral for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, Iranian nuclear scientists, and civilians who are killed in Israeli attacks, in Tehran, Iran, on June 28, 2025, during the Iran-Israel ceasefire. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto VIA REUTERS)

First it was regime change, now they want to break Iran apart

Middle East

Washington’s foreign policy establishment has a dangerous tendency to dismantle nations it deems adversarial. Now, neoconservative think tanks like the Washington-based Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) and their fellow travelers in the European Parliament are openly promoting the balkanization of Iran — a reckless strategy that would further destabilize the Middle East, trigger catastrophic humanitarian crises, and provoke fierce resistance from both Iranians and U.S. partners.

As Israel and Iran exchanged blows in mid-June, FDD’s Brenda Shaffer argued that Iran’s multi-ethnic makeup was a vulnerability to be exploited. Shaffer has been a vocal advocate for Azerbaijan in mainstream U.S. media, even as she has consistently failed to disclose her ties to Azerbaijan’s state oil company, SOCAR. For years, she has pushed for Iran’s fragmentation along ethnic lines, akin to the former Yugoslavia’s collapse. She has focused much of that effort on promoting the secession of Iranian Azerbaijan, where Azeris form Iran’s largest non-Persian group.

keep readingShow less
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

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.