WASHINGTON: The United States is facing a delicate balancing act as it seeks to define the mandate for a proposed International Stabilisation Force (ISF) in Gaza, with a new report by the Middle East Institute (MEI) cautioning against the creation of a US-centric force that could be drawn into an increasingly kinetic and volatile conflict.

The MEI report, released on Friday evening, outlines the political, legal and operational pitfalls that a US-led force could encounter in Gaza. It urges Washington to assume a leadership role in the ISF “only as a last resort” and stresses the importance of securing a firm, multinational commitment of forces before moving ahead. The report also sheds light on why the US is actively lobbying its allies, particularly Arab and Muslim-majority countries, to contribute troops, underlining the need for a broad-based international presence to ensure legitimacy and burden-sharing.

The report calls for clear and detailed guidelines on rules of engagement, the scale of US manpower, and the types of logistical, intelligence and operational support that Washington would be willing to provide.

At the same time, it warns that any meaningful stabilisation mission would inevitably place deployed forces in harm’s way, even if extensive protective measures were put in place.

Next phase of truce plan envisions withdrawal of Israeli forces, formation of interim authority and ISF deployment

This challenge is further complicated by the need to balance Israel’s security demands with the political and legal concerns of potential troop-contributing countries. As diplomats gathered this week in Doha and Miami for consultations, it became increasingly apparent that questions of legal authority, command and control, operational responsibilities and rules of engagement must be resolved before any country, particularly Muslim-majority states, can seriously consider committing forces.

Doha and Miami consultations

Representatives from more than two dozen countries convened in Doha recently to discuss the leadership, structure and operational framework of the proposed ISF. However, the conference failed to produce a mandate that would satisfy both Israel and potential contributors, highlighting the difficulty of converting a diplomatic framework into a practical, deployable mission.

Turkish officials, for example, reiterated Ankara’s willingness to participate in the force despite Israel’s objections.

Also, Washington hosted senior officials from Qatar, Egypt and Turkiye in Miami as part of efforts to advance discussions on the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire. The talks were led by Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, and focused on narrowing differences rather than finalising concrete agreements. Neither Israel nor Hamas was directly represented at the meeting.

Phase two of the ceasefire plan envisions three interlinked steps: the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, the establishment of an interim governing authority, and the deployment of the ISF to maintain security and public order. Officials described the discussions as constructive but acknowledged that progress remained slow.

Mandate first, commitments later

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has emphasised that defining the ISF’s mandate must precede any firm troop commitments. “We owe countries more answers before we can ask them to firmly commit,” he said, noting that several states — including Pakistan — had expressed interest, though no formal pledges had yet been made.

Rubio said Washington was “very grateful to Pakistan for their offer to be a part of it, or at least their offer to consider being a part of it,” but stressed that clarity on the mission’s mandate, command structure and operational parameters remained essential.

He also outlined plans for the creation of a “Board of Peace” and a Palestinian technocratic committee to oversee day-to-day governance in Gaza during the transition period. According to Rubio, these interim political bodies would be crucial in providing a legitimate framework within which the ISF could operate. Without such structures, foreign troops would risk operating in a political vacuum, caught between competing and contested claims of authority.

Disarmament remains contentious

The issue of Hamas’ disarmament continues to pose a major obstacle to progress. Hamas officials insist that any next phase of the ceasefire must compel Israel to end alleged truce violations and allow increased humanitarian assistance, while maintaining what they describe as the group’s “legitimate right” to retain weapons until a credible political settlement is achieved.

Israel, on the other hand, is demanding firm guarantees that Gaza will not once again become a Hamas stronghold. Rubio indicated that Washington’s objective was to dismantle Hamas’ military capabilities while still leaving space for negotiations over Gaza’s political future.

Rubio estimated that the full implementation of phase two of the Gaza peace plan could take between two and three years. For the time being, the proposed ISF remains more a conceptual framework than a deployable force.

Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2025