Donald Trump’s vow to “take over” the Gaza Strip has generated shock, confusion, and grievance worldwide since he announced it at a press conference held at the White House on Tuesday evening. The conference, arranged for the first visit of a foreign leader during his second term, saw Trump hosting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
During the event, Trump stated that the United States would “take over” the war-ravaged Gaza Strip and “own it,” envisioning the coastal enclave as the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
From an International Relations (IR) perspective—an academic discipline believed to have originated during WWI—Trump’s statement can be analyzed through the lenses of Classical Realism, Constructivism, and Critical Theories.
Classical Realism: Power, National Interest, and Absolute Advantage
Classical Realism emphasizes that leaders strive for power, national interest, and absolute advantage in an anarchic world—one without a centralized global authority.
Trump stated that the U.S. would take responsibility for dismantling unexploded bombs and other weapons in Gaza, levelling destroyed buildings, and creating economic development to create “unlimited jobs and housing for the people of the Middle East.”
Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment in a post on X, stating, “The United States stands ready to lead and Make Gaza Beautiful Again. Our pursuit is one of lasting peace in the region for all people.”
Through framing this intervention as a humanitarian mission—promising a better life for Middle Eastern people—Mr. President ultimately serves a strategic purpose: furthering U.S. influence in the region and bolstering Israel’s geopolitical standing. The far-right Israeli perspective often views Gaza as “a land without people”—in political science terms, those who are not granted political dignity are not considered people but rather a population.
Constructivism: The Social Construction of Interests and Identity
Constructivism argues that international politics is shaped by interactions, shared norms, and constructed identities rather than fixed interests. It suggests that leaders’ behaviors and actions are not always coherent with past policies but are influenced by ideas, narratives, and social context.
A key concept in Constructivism is “appropriating”—where leaders justify actions by portraying them as necessary and beneficial.
Trump reinforced this approach when he described Gaza as a “hellhole” and “a symbol of death and destruction” during the press conference.
“I’ve studied this very closely over a lot of months,” he claimed, adding that he saw a long-term ownership role for the U.S. in Gaza, which, in his words, would “bring great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire region.” He further insisted that “everybody I’ve spoken to loves the idea of the United States owning that piece of land.”
Trump framed the intervention as a moral imperative, stating:
“If we can create a beautiful area where people can resettle permanently in nice homes, where they can be happy, and where they won’t be shot, won’t be killed, and won’t be knifed to death like what’s happening in Gaza, then why not?”
Critical Theories: Exposing Inequality and Challenging Power Structures
Critical Theories—a broad umbrella term—challenge established norms and power structures, exposing inequalities with the aim of promoting more just and equitable global politics.
Many critics argue that Trump’s proposal, if implemented, would violate international law and reinforce systemic oppression.
Paul O’Brien, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, warned:
“If the Palestinian people were ever somehow forcibly expelled from Gaza, this crime against humanity would spark widespread conflict, put the final nail in the coffin of international law, and destroy what remains of our nation’s international image and standing.”
He added, “Removing all Palestinians from Gaza is tantamount to destroying them as a people. Gaza is their home. Gaza’s death and destruction is a result of the government of Israel killing civilians by the thousands, often with U.S. bombs.”
From a post-colonial perspective—a subset of Critical Theories—the forced displacement of millions of Palestinians “permanently” to neighboring countries like Egypt and Jordan, though still unclear, would amount to ethnic cleansing—a legacy of colonialism that continues to shape global power dynamics.
In conclusion, while Donald Trump’s vow to “take over” Gaza has sparked widespread debate, his lack of clear details has left even GOP lawmakers uncertain about its feasibility and legality. The question remains whether this bold claim will materialize or remain a vacuous talk amid the ongoing tension between geopolitical power and humanitarian principles.
Trump could cite no legal authority that would permit the U.S. to unilaterally control another territory or forcibly remove its population—actions that would violate international law and likely require thousands of U.S. troops, potentially escalating conflict.
John Hoeven, senator from North Dakota, a seat he has held since 2011, suggests this might be a negotiation tactic, while Senator Josh Hawley, questions whether American resources should be directed toward Gaza at all.
Notably, Trump’s vision is not a temporary intervention but a long-term “ownership position,” with no intention of returning Gaza to the Palestinians. Former Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller warns that such a move contradicts Trump’s own rejection of nation-building and could set a dangerous precedent, effectively giving Russia and China a green light to seize territory as they see fit.
As uncertainty looms, Trump’s Gaza plan raises critical questions about its implications—not just for the region but for the broader international order.
