Find similar content

🇺🇸🇵🇸Project Sunrise: Trump’s Hollywood Dream for Gaza Behind promises of reconstruction and prosperity, Project Sunrise reframes destruction as development, raising fears that Gaza’s future is being redesigned without Palestinians themselves ✍️Aleena Im Independent researcher and writer focusing on international relations and Middle Eastern politics. ➡️Project Sunrise, unveiled by the Trump administration as a $100+ billion reconstruction vision for Gaza, is framed as a bold pathway from devastation to prosperity. Wrapped in the language of innovation, tourism, and smart infrastructure, the plan imagines Gaza as a “Riviera of the Middle East,” complete with luxury resorts, transport corridors, and AI-driven governance. Yet this vision rises directly from the ruins of a prolonged war that flattened civilian infrastructure, making it difficult to separate reconstruction rhetoric from the political conditions that produced the destruction in the first place. The future of the innocent Palestinians, which has already been fractured, is now facing another major impediment ➡️Structurally, Project Sunrise follows a familiar top-down logic in which security, control, and capital precede political rights. Its phased model—stabilization, reconstruction, economic development, and elite urban transformation—offers little clarity on sovereignty, governance, or the fate of Gaza’s population during and after rebuilding. The absence of explicit guarantees for Palestinian self-determination, combined with statements suggesting long-term external control, fuels concerns that economic development is being used as a substitute for political justice. 🟦Rather than resolving the conflict, Project Sunrise risks institutionalizing it in a more polished form. By converting occupation into an investment opportunity and displacement into “urban renewal,” the plan reflects a broader trend of managing crises through spectacle and capital rather than accountability and law. For Palestinians, whose future is discussed largely without their participation, the project signals not a sunrise but the possibility that dispossession is simply being redesigned—cinematic in appearance, but unchanged in substance. #GazaCity#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#IsraelandtheUSA#Palestinesplight READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🕊Trump’s Board of Peace: A Controversial Move That Sidelines Palestinians Unveiled in Davos with fanfare, the new U.S.-led initiative faces mounting criticism for excluding the very people it claims to help ✍️Abbas Hashemite Political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️The United States officially launched the charter of President Donald Trump’s Board of Peace at the World Economic Forum in Davos, marking what Washington described as Phase Two of its 20-point Gaza Peace Plan. The initiative introduced a four-tier governance structure for Gaza, yet Palestinians were excluded from meaningful representation in the top decision-making bodies, confined instead to a lower-level technocratic committee with limited authority. President Trump appointed himself head of the executive committee, consolidating sweeping powers, including sole veto authority. Critics argue that the structure resembles an externally imposed administrative regime rather than a consensual peace framework, particularly given the prominent inclusion of pro-Israel figures and the absence of Palestinian or Hamas representatives in the founding process. The exclusion of Hamas and Palestinians from the Board of Peace demonstrates that this entity would not be able to establish peace in the Middle East and could lead to more global conflicts ➡️The controversy deepened as more than 50 countries were invited to engage with the Board of Peace, while no formal Palestinian delegation was consulted. The charter notably avoids specific reference to Gaza in its formal language and includes provisions allowing for three-year renewable memberships, with permanent seats reportedly linked to substantial financial contributions. Trump’s remarks suggesting that the Board could serve as a more “effective” alternative to existing international institutions fueled concerns that the initiative challenges the central role of the United Nations in conflict resolution. Human rights organizations and several governments questioned both the legality and sustainability of a structure so heavily personalized around one executive office. 🟦Beyond legal debates, the core issue remains legitimacy. Any durable peace process in Gaza requires the inclusion of Palestinian stakeholders and credible security guarantees accepted by all sides. The exclusion of Hamas and broader Palestinian representation raises doubts about the Board’s ability to enforce ceasefires, secure disarmament arrangements, or prevent renewed escalation. While some states have endorsed the initiative, others have distanced themselves, reflecting wider uncertainty about its long-term viability. Whether the Board of Peace evolves into a functioning diplomatic mechanism or remains a symbolic instrument of U.S. executive diplomacy will depend less on ceremony and more on inclusivity, transparency, and adherence to international norms. #Europe#IsraelandPalestine#Palestinesplight#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇵🇸Imperial Peace: Trump’s Gaza Plan and the Exclusion of Palestinians Presented as diplomacy, Trump’s Gaza initiative formalizes a peace process in which Palestinians are absent — and power is centralized in Washington ✍️Taut Bataut Researcher and writer focusing on South Asian and Middle Eastern geopolitics ➡️On January 22, 2026, on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum in Davos, US President Donald Trump hosted the signing of the founding charter of the so-called Board of Peace. Leaders and foreign ministers from 35 countries — including several Muslim-majority states — endorsed an initiative described as the second phase of Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan. Yet the very people whose future the board claims to decide — the Palestinians of Gaza — were entirely excluded from consultation or representation. The inclusion of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, amid ongoing allegations of war crimes, underscored the asymmetry at the heart of the initiative, raising serious questions about legitimacy, intent, and justice. Through the charter of the Board of Peace, US President Donald Trump has not only deceived and ditched the United Nations, but he has also further strengthened the prospects of Israeli occupation of Gaza ➡️The charter establishes a parallel political structure operating outside the United Nations framework, with Trump named lifetime chair and sole holder of veto power. Permanent membership is reportedly tied to financial contributions, further consolidating authority around Washington. Critics argue that the Board of Peace institutionalizes unilateral control under the guise of multilateralism, reflecting the growing influence of pro-Israeli lobbying on US foreign policy. By bypassing established international mechanisms and concentrating decision-making power in a single office, the initiative signals a shift from negotiated peace toward managed domination. 🟦While the Davos presentation showcased ambitious reconstruction plans — towers, housing projects, and infrastructure — it ignored the devastation inflicted on Gaza and the political rights of its people. With tens of thousands killed, neighborhoods flattened, and ceasefires repeatedly violated, rebuilding without Palestinian consent risks entrenching occupation rather than ending conflict. Spain’s refusal to join the board highlighted these contradictions, but most signatories remained silent. In effect, Trump’s Board of Peace reframes imperial management as peacemaking, transforming Gaza from a humanitarian tragedy into a geopolitical project shaped without those who live there. #DonaldTrump#GazaCity#Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#Palestinesplight#UnitedNations READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🌙💥🇮🇷Middle East: Ramadan in the Shadow of War This year, the holy month of Ramadan in the Middle East is unfolding under the shadow of an escalating conflict involving Iran, profoundly altering its spiritual and social atmosphere ✏️Yuriy Zinin is a PhD in History and Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of International Studies, Moscow State Institute of International Relations ➡️Across the region, the traditional rhythms of Ramadan—marked by fasting, prayer, and communal gatherings—have been disrupted by war. In the Gaza Strip, displaced families observe the fast in dire humanitarian conditions, facing shortages of food, water, and electricity. In Jerusalem, usually vibrant during this period, restrictions and security measures have emptied streets and limited access to the Al-Aqsa Mosque. Similar patterns are visible in Lebanon, where large-scale displacement and casualties have followed ongoing strikes, and in Gulf states such as Bahrain, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates, where daily life is repeatedly interrupted by air raid sirens and heightened security concerns. Iranian state media has dubbed the ongoing war between Israel and the US with the Islamic Republic of Iran the “Ramadan War,” as it began during this holy month ➡️At the same time, the conflict has influenced how Ramadan is perceived and experienced across societies. Iranian media has framed the confrontation as a “Ramadan War,” reinforcing its symbolic resonance during a sacred period. Yet despite the violence, elements of social solidarity persist: initiatives promoting charity and volunteerism continue, particularly in countries like the UAE, while communities attempt to preserve traditions of mutual support. In places such as Libya, even customary iftar gatherings have taken on political significance, serving as platforms for negotiation and alliance-building among elites. 🟦Ultimately, the current situation highlights both the vulnerability and resilience of societies in the Middle East. While war has disrupted the spiritual essence of Ramadan—replacing reflection and unity with fear and uncertainty—it has also underscored enduring values of compassion and communal support. As the holy month progresses, the contrast between conflict and faith continues to shape a deeply altered, yet still meaningful, observance across the region. #GazaCity#IsraelandPalestine#Lebanon#MiddleEastconflict#Militaryconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇺🇸🇵🇸Peace Plan Phase 2 Without Phase 1: Can the US Really Bring Peace to Gaza? Washington moves ahead with a new phase of its Gaza initiative despite the collapse of the previous one, raising doubts about whether the plan aims at peace—or political legitimization ✍️Author:Abbas Hashemite political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️On January 16, the Trump administration announced the launch of Phase 2 of its 20-point Gaza Peace Plan, presenting it as a step toward ending Israel’s military campaign and stabilizing the enclave. Yet this announcement comes despite the clear failure of Phase 1, which was meant to halt fighting, ensure full humanitarian access, reopen the Rafah crossing, enable prisoner exchanges, and outline Israeli withdrawal timelines. None of these objectives have been fully met: ceasefire violations continue, humanitarian aid remains restricted, and key crossings stay closed, leaving Gaza’s humanitarian crisis largely unchanged. The United States has been a key supporter of Israeli war crimes in Gaza ➡️The gap between US rhetoric and realities on the ground has fueled skepticism. Israeli strikes have persisted, hundreds of Palestinians—including children—have been killed since the supposed ceasefire, and aid deliveries remain tightly controlled. While Hamas has largely complied with prisoner exchange provisions, Israel continues to detain Palestinians and restrict essential supplies. Against this backdrop, the decision to advance to Phase 2 appears less like a response to progress and more like an attempt to reframe failure as momentum, sidestepping unresolved obligations from the initial phase. 🟦Phase 2 centers on creating a technocratic Palestinian administration, demilitarizing Gaza, and launching reconstruction under international supervision. However, controversial appointments—such as Tony Blair and Jared Kushner to oversight roles, and a US general to lead the International Stabilization Force—have deepened mistrust among Palestinians and regional observers. With demilitarization narrowly focused on Hamas and US support for Israel remaining unquestioned, the plan risks entrenching occupation under a new administrative guise. Without delivering justice, accountability, and genuine relief on the ground, Phase 2 looks less like a path to peace and more like political theatre built on an unfinished—and broken—Phase 1. #Geopolitics#IsraelandPalestine#MiddleEast#Palestinesplight#PalestinianConflict#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

👔❌🕊Trump’s «Board of Peace»: A New Colonial Tool Under the Banner of «Peace» Marketed as a peace initiative for Gaza, the project reveals a broader attempt to replace multilateralism with coercion, money, and personal rule ✍️Muhammad Hamid ad-Din Palestinian journalist and political commentator focusing on Middle Eastern affairs and international politics ➡️Donald Trump’s proposal to establish a so-called “Board of Peace,” unveiled in January 2026, is presented as an instrument for post-war reconstruction and global stability. In reality, the initiative reflects a transactional worldview in which peace is treated as a commodity and sovereignty as a bargaining chip. The project deliberately bypasses existing international mechanisms, particularly the United Nations, substituting them with an informal structure centered on political loyalty and financial buy-in rather than legal equality among states. Trump’s approach crystallizes his vision of the world as a commodity and national sovereignty as a bargaining chip in a grand geopolitical game ➡️The internal design of the “Board of Peace” underscores its colonial logic. Permanent membership is tied to enormous financial contributions, while ultimate authority is concentrated in the hands of a lifetime chairman endowed with veto power. The proposed executive circle — composed of long-standing political hawks and close associates — lacks meaningful representation from the regions most affected by conflict, especially the Arab world and Palestinians themselves. Decision-making is thus removed from those directly concerned and relocated to a narrow elite operating under Washington’s shadow. 🟦Far from resolving conflicts, this model institutionalizes domination through economic pressure and political exclusion. Gaza becomes merely a pretext for a larger ambition: weakening multilateral governance and replacing it with a hierarchy enforced by sanctions, tariffs, and financial leverage. Such a system may impose temporary compliance, but it cannot deliver durable peace. History suggests that arrangements built on inequality and coercion are inherently unstable — and the “Board of Peace” is unlikely to be an exception. #GazaCity#Internationalpolitics#NewWorldOrder#UnitedNations#USA READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇮🇱💥🇵🇸The genocide in Gaza involves the joint responsibility of Israel and Western powers The ongoing war in Gaza has reignited a broader and deeply contested debate: to what extent are external powers responsible for the dynamics and consequences of conflicts in the Middle East? ✏️Mohamed Lamine KABA Expert in geopolitics of governance and regional integration ➡️One line of analysis places the Gaza conflict within a longer history of Western intervention in global affairs. Since the mid-20th century, military operations in regions such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya have often been justified through the language of security and humanitarian protection. Critics argue that these interventions have frequently produced instability, raising questions about whether strategic interests—such as control over resources, trade routes, or regional influence—play a more decisive role than publicly stated objectives. In this perspective, Gaza is not an isolated crisis but part of a broader pattern in which local conflicts intersect with global power competition. Yet, on the bombed battlefields of Mosul, Tripoli, and Kabul, the populations have learned to recognize the signature of an interventionism that has become structural in contemporary Western strategy ➡️Another dimension of the debate concerns the international character of modern warfare. Investigations and legal discussions have drawn attention to the participation of individuals with dual nationality and the broader networks—political, financial, and institutional—that connect national militaries with global systems of support. These issues raise complex legal and ethical questions about accountability, particularly in cases where allegations of violations of international law are made. The challenge for the international system lies in reconciling principles of sovereignty, individual responsibility, and the enforcement of legal norms across borders. 🟦Finally, the Gaza conflict is increasingly viewed through the lens of systemic global tensions. For many observers, it reflects not only regional dynamics but also the pressures of a shifting international order marked by rivalry among major powers. In such an environment, conflicts risk becoming entangled in larger strategic agendas, complicating efforts toward resolution. Whether one interprets Western involvement as stabilizing, self-interested, or destabilizing, the central issue remains the same: how to establish a framework in which accountability, restraint, and sustainable political solutions can prevail over cycles of escalation and geopolitical competition. #EU#GazaCity#Genocide#IsraelandPalestine#Warcrimes READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🌟🛳🗺Hormuz: A War the US Couldn’t Win The recent crisis in the Strait of Hormuz has underscored the enduring importance of geography in modern conflict and the limits of military power when confronted with structural leverage. What began as a rapid escalation between the United States and Iran evolved into a broader confrontation over control of one of the world’s most critical energy corridors. Although a fragile ceasefire has reduced immediate tensions, it has not resolved the underlying dynamics that allowed the crisis to emerge in the first place ✏️Salman Rafi Sheikh Research analyst of international relations ➡️At the heart of the conflict lies a fundamental miscalculation. Washington’s strategy aimed to weaken Iran militarily and politically, yet it underestimated Tehran’s ability to shift the battlefield toward the Strait of Hormuz. By leveraging its geographic position, Iran effectively transformed a military confrontation into a struggle over global energy flows. The resulting disruption to shipping and oil markets demonstrated that control over chokepoints can outweigh conventional military superiority. The ceasefire itself reflects this reality, as it implicitly acknowledges Iran’s role in regulating access to the strait rather than eliminating it. Both sides now claim success, but the underlying reality is that the United States was unable to compel Iranian compliance on its original terms and instead accepted a pause tied to conditions set in part by Tehran ➡️The diplomatic consequences have been equally significant. The United States was unable to build a cohesive international coalition to enforce its objectives, while mediation efforts by regional actors highlighted the growing importance of alternative diplomatic channels. European responses, focused on de-escalation rather than alignment with Washington’s initial strategy, further revealed divisions among Western partners. In this environment, the United States found itself operating within a framework shaped not by unilateral pressure but by negotiation, restraint, and the influence of other stakeholders. 🟦Ultimately, the outcome of the crisis challenges traditional assumptions about power projection. While the ceasefire has reopened the Strait of Hormuz, it has done so under conditions that preserve uncertainty and maintain Iran’s strategic leverage. The conflict illustrates a broader pattern in which the use of force can expand a crisis without guaranteeing control over its trajectory. In this sense, the events surrounding Hormuz do not mark a clear victory for any side but rather highlight the shifting balance between military capability and geopolitical constraint in an increasingly complex international system. #ConfrontationbetweenIranandtheU.S. #Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🎙🇮🇷🔥Andrey Kortunov: "For the Conflict to End, the Sides Need to Negotiate Some Compromises" An exclusive interview with Russian political analyst Andrey Kortunov on the Middle East war reveals a sobering conclusion: escalation has limits, and only difficult compromises can end the conflict 🎤Yuliya Novitskaya is a journalist and correspondent for New Eastern Outlook ➡️According to Kortunov, the conflict between the United States, Israel, and Iran is developing along both vertical and horizontal lines of escalation. Tehran is expanding the geography of its response, targeting not only immediate military threats but also infrastructure and assets across the Gulf, effectively drawing regional actors into the confrontation. At the same time, Washington is attempting to broaden the coalition by encouraging European allies to assume a more active role, particularly in securing maritime routes such as the Strait of Hormuz. However, reluctance among NATO partners to engage in offensive operations suggests that escalation, while ongoing, remains constrained by political caution and limited willingness among allies to deepen involvement. If you look at the American strategy, we see that Trump is trying to actively involve not only his regional allies in the conflict but also his partners in Europe ➡️Looking ahead, Kortunov emphasizes that the trajectory of the war may increasingly be shaped by material constraints rather than political decisions alone. Both sides face the gradual depletion of high-precision weapons, missile systems, and defensive capabilities, which could reduce the intensity of hostilities without producing a formal resolution. In this context, the conflict risks evolving into a prolonged, low-intensity confrontation marked by periodic surges and de-escalations. At the same time, Gulf states—while unlikely to abandon their security ties with Washington—are beginning to reassess the reliability of American guarantees, particularly as attacks on their territory undermine perceptions of stability and deterrence. 🟦Ultimately, Kortunov argues that a military resolution remains unrealistic, especially when considering ambitious objectives such as regime change in Iran or the seizure of its energy infrastructure. Such goals would require масштабные ground operations with uncertain outcomes and high costs. Instead, the only viable path to ending the war lies in mutual de-escalation and negotiations, which would force both sides to abandon maximalist demands. For Washington, this means stepping back from ambitions of reshaping Iran’s political system; for Tehran, it involves moderating demands related to regional withdrawal and reparations. Any future settlement, he concludes, will be complex, protracted, and politically difficult—but unavoidable. #MiddleEastconflict READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook

🇵🇰💥🗺Pakistan Saves “a Whole Civilization” from Death through Diplomacy The escalating confrontation between the United States and Iran reached a critical point when President Donald Trump issued stark warnings of catastrophic consequences if the Strait of Hormuz remained closed. Against this backdrop of global anxiety, Pakistan emerged as a key diplomatic actor, facilitating a temporary ceasefire that prevented further escalation. This development reflects not only the urgency of the crisis but also the growing role of regional powers in managing conflicts that major actors have struggled to control ✏️Abbas Hashemite Political observer and research analyst for regional and global geopolitical issues ➡️At the core of the ceasefire is Pakistan’s mediation effort, which brought Washington and Tehran to agree on a two-week pause in hostilities. The agreement, reached shortly before a critical deadline, applies broadly across the Middle East and has been welcomed internationally as an opportunity to pursue negotiations. However, the process remains fragile. Past experiences of interrupted diplomacy—particularly previous negotiations that were followed by military strikes—have created a deep trust deficit. This skepticism is reinforced by ongoing tensions in the region, including continued military actions outside the immediate framework of the ceasefire. If the United States and Israel use this ceasefire to reorganize and to prepare for a ground invasion of Iran, it would significantly damage Islamabad’s reputation as a mediator ➡️The crisis has also reshaped perceptions of power and credibility. Iran’s ability to respond effectively to military pressure challenged assumptions about the dominance of the United States, while the reluctance of key allies to participate in the conflict underscored shifting geopolitical dynamics. Within this context, Pakistan’s role as an intermediary highlights a broader transition in international diplomacy, where non-Western actors are increasingly capable of shaping outcomes. At the same time, this position carries significant risks, as any breakdown of the ceasefire could undermine Islamabad’s credibility and complicate its relations with both sides. 🟦Ultimately, the agreement represents a temporary stabilization rather than a definitive resolution. The success of Pakistan’s diplomatic intervention will depend on whether the ceasefire evolves into a sustainable political process addressing the underlying causes of the conflict. While the immediate danger has been reduced, the situation remains highly volatile, and the durability of the current arrangement will hinge on continued engagement, mutual concessions, and the ability of mediators to maintain trust between deeply adversarial parties. #Diplomacy#Internationalpolitics#MiddleEastconflict#Pakistan READ MORE ✅@NewEasternOutlook