Summary
Despite a ceasefire and hostage release, Hamas remains committed to its extremist agenda, using the lull to consolidate power, suppress opposition, and manipulate global narratives. The group’s continued control of Gaza—backed by foreign sponsors like Iran, Qatar, and Turkey—prevents meaningful reform or peace.
Hizbullah’s growing strength in Lebanon and Iranian expansion through Syria represent escalating threats to Israel and regional security. Turkey and Qatar’s dual roles—as Western allies yet enablers of Islamist actors—undermine regional stabilization, while Jordan and Egypt’s fragile balance between internal pressures and regional responsibilities remains critical to maintaining order.
Legally and strategically, the Trump 20-Point Plan lacks enforceable mechanisms, leaving Israel reliant on its right to self-defense. Hamas’s disinformation campaign continues to distort international perception, requiring countermeasures such as a dedicated “Hamas Monitor.”
Policy recommendations call for:
- Excluding Turkey and Qatar from Gaza reconstruction.
- Strengthening coordination with Egypt, Jordan, and moderate Arab states.
- Maintaining close U.S.–Israel defense cooperation through CENTCOM.
- Linking humanitarian aid to verified counterterrorism compliance.
- Expanding global advocacy against extremist narratives.
The report concludes that the coming year will be decisive: only a coordinated, transparent multinational strategy can prevent renewed violence and ensure durable regional stability.
Following the recent hostage release agreement in Gaza and the subsequent ceasefire, and in light of President Trump’s 20-Point Plan, this Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs (JCFA) position paper provides a comprehensive policy analysis of the regional dynamics that continue to shape the Middle East. We examined Hamas’s sustained control in Gaza, the roles of regional actors such as Hizbullah, Iran, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt, and outlined strategic recommendations for ensuring regional stability and countering extremist entrenchment.
1. Hamas and the Illusion of Change
Despite the ceasefire and the hostage release, Hamas has not altered its fundamental objectives. Hamas continues to exploit the current ceasefire to reassert its control over the Gaza Strip, using the lull in fighting to eliminate internal opposition and suppress Palestinians who oppose them. Hamas’s public executions and intimidation campaigns have become tools for enforcing compliance and deterring dissent.
This campaign of terror within Gaza, combined with the silence of the international community, including so-called pro-Palestinian activists, has emboldened Hamas to act with impunity. The absence of condemnation sends a dangerous message to Palestinians: that resistance to Hamas’s rule will not be supported, and that coexistence with Israel remains taboo. Hamas’s leadership continues to reiterate that it will never recognize Israel’s right to exist, viewing the Trump peace initiative merely as a temporary pause – hudna – before renewed violence.
In that vein, Hamas’s continuing strategy is to manipulate global narratives, portraying itself as a victim of aggression while entrenching its theocratic control over Gaza. No transitional government or international “Board of Peace,” even chaired by President Trump, can impose law and order as long as Hamas retains its coercive power and foreign sponsorship. A genuine de-radicalization process will only be possible after Hamas is dismantled, disarmed, and removed from governance.
2. Hizbullah, Syria, and the Northern Front
Hizbullah’s resurgence in Lebanon poses an escalating threat to Israel and the wider region. Despite suffering significant losses in previous conflicts, the organization has rebuilt its capabilities with Iranian assistance and now exerts de facto control over parts of southern Lebanon. Its defiance of the Lebanese government, coupled with mass rallies glorifying its leadership, reflects a continuing failure of state sovereignty.
In Syria, shifting alliances have created a fragile environment where Iranian and Turkish regime influence continue to expand. While limited cooperation between Israel and certain Syrian factions has reduced direct hostilities, the risk of a renewed Iranian corridor, from Tehran through Damascus to Beirut, remains acute. Syria’s potential to act as a buffer state depends on international coordination and the containment of external military presences.
3. Turkey and Qatar: Problematic Partnerships
Turkey and Qatar play a dual role in the current regional landscape, as formal allies of the West yet active enablers of Islamist movements. Both states have positioned themselves as mediators in the Gaza conflict while simultaneously offering political and financial support to Hamas. Turkish construction projects and Qatari financial aid are being used to entrench Hamas’s administrative hold and legitimize its rule under the guise of reconstruction.
Turkey’s growing involvement in Gaza, alongside its established military presence in Syria and Libya, signals a broader ambition to project influence across the Eastern Mediterranean. Qatar, for its part, uses its vast wealth and diplomatic leverage to maintain relevance as a broker in crises it helps sustain. This dynamic undermines moderate Arab states and complicates efforts to achieve a sustainable, terror-free post-conflict order in Gaza.
Qatar’s role as a mediator is consequential and multifaceted. As a wealthy state with extensive diplomatic reach, Doha positions itself as an indispensable broker in hostage negotiations and ceasefire arrangements. However, this mediator role is double-edged: Qatar’s financial transfers and political protection to Hamas have historically enabled the group’s governance capacities and resilience. Qatar’s mediation therefore risks legitimizing actors it simultaneously empowers; any engagement that relies on Doha should be accompanied by strict transparency, financial oversight, and conditions that prevent funds or infrastructure from reinforcing militant capabilities.
Turkey’s strategic posture presents an acute security concern if its regional footprint expands further. Ankara’s deployments and influence in Syria, combined with construction, logistical, and political engagement in Gaza, create the potential for a contiguous zone of Turkish influence stretching from southern Syria through Lebanon’s periphery and into Gaza. Such a configuration could effectively form a strategic chokehold around Israel, complicating military maneuverability, creating logistical chokepoints, and enabling persistent political pressure by a single external actor. If Turkey were to consolidate control or strong influence in both Syria and Gaza, it could leverage military assets, supply lines and political leverage to constrain Israel’s options and embed allied non-state actors across multiple theaters.
4. Jordan and Egypt in the Regional Equation
Jordan faces mounting internal pressures due to economic hardship, political stagnation, and the re-emergence of the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Hashemite Kingdom’s security forces continue to act as a stabilizing force along Israel’s longest border, the risk of internal radicalization and instability remains a significant concern. Any further deterioration in Jordan’s stability could have direct repercussions on Israel’s eastern front and on regional security as a whole.
Egypt, meanwhile, occupies a delicate position. Despite its historical rivalry with the Muslim Brotherhood and its official opposition to Hamas, Cairo’s policy is constrained by its dependence on U.S. financial assistance and international economic aid. While Egypt plays a crucial mediating role between Israel and Hamas, its internal struggle against Islamist resurgence continues to shape its regional approach. Egypt’s balancing act, between appeasing international partners and suppressing domestic extremism, renders its policy cautious yet indispensable.
5. Legal, Cognitive, and Strategic Dimensions
From a legal perspective, the Trump 20-Point Plan provides aspirational goals rather than enforceable mechanisms. Israel retains, under international law, the right to self-defense and to maintain a military presence until all terrorist capabilities in Gaza are dismantled. However, the absence of clear supervisory structures leaves room for exploitation by hostile actors.
On the cognitive and media fronts, Hamas continues to wage a sophisticated disinformation campaign aimed at Western audiences. By manipulating human rights discourse and leveraging sympathetic NGOs, the organization seeks to normalize its presence and obscure its extremist ideology. Countering this requires coordinated strategic communications, such as a permanent “Hamas Monitor” platform, to document disinformation and align international opinion with the principles of counterterrorism and regional stability.
6. Policy Recommendations and Strategic Outlook
- Ensure no daylight, airtight cooperation in governance and military operations, and security supervision with newly-established U.S. Civil-Military Coordination Center (CMCC) opened by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) in southern Israel.
- Ensure that any reconstruction or governance initiatives in Gaza explicitly exclude Turkish and Qatari involvement.
- Reinforce cooperation with Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Morocco, and the UAE to consolidate a pragmatic coalition against extremism.
- Support the establishment of demilitarized buffer zones along Israel’s northern and southern fronts.
- Develop targeted international advocacy emphasizing Hamas’s human rights abuses against Palestinians.
- Expand media and diplomatic outreach to expose the ideological alignment between Hamas, Hizbullah, and Iran.
- Encourage sustained U.S. engagement linking humanitarian aid to verifiable counterterrorism compliance.
Looking ahead, the next 6-12 months are likely to determine whether the ceasefire evolves into a durable stabilization process or devolves into another cycle of violence. A coherent, multinational strategy, anchored in accountability, transparency, and partnership with moderate Arab states, remains the most viable path forward. Failure to neutralize Hamas and its regional enablers will not only perpetuate Gaza’s suffering but also risk another October 7-style atrocity.
