A hangar near Ashkelon hardly seems the place for answering questions about sorting out the Middle East. But it is there that US Vice President JD Vance found himself yesterday, answering questions from the media about his visit to the Jewish state, the status of the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, and the future of Gaza.
There, among military officers and aid coordinators, Vance laid out what might be the most ambitious American plan for Gaza since the region descended into war.
His message was part hope, part hard realism, and entirely rooted in an unmistakable fact: Washington intends to lead.
The Trump administration deserves credit for achieving what seemed impossible weeks ago: a ceasefire that has held, the return of all the remaining living hostages, and most of those murdered.
The establishment of the Civilian-Military Coordination Center, staffed by 200 American personnel, is a sign of a genuine commitment to monitoring the brittle peace, which is just about holding.
“The only real mediator is the United States,” Vance declared plainly (although he was quick to point out there would be “no American boots on the ground”). Washington is coordinating the creation of an international stabilization force to secure Gaza, drawing from Arab states, Turkey, Indonesia, and Israel.
The VP made no promises he couldn’t keep. “Can I say with 100% certainty that it’s going to work? No,” he acknowledged. “But you don’t do difficult things by only doing what’s 100% certain. You do them by trying.”
It’s an honest assessment. The Trump administration is placing all its chips on the idea that American mediation alone can solve the problem.
There will be issues along the way. The International Security Force being put together to manage the peace of the coastal region requires historic cooperation between nations that have rarely gotten along with each other.
Vance acknowledged Turkey’s past Hamas support while insisting everyone must “focus on the future.” A noble sentiment, but there is much in Turkey to distrust.
Israel has no relations whatsoever with Indonesia, and the Gulf states alternate between their private need for Israel and their public bashing of any Israeli move in the war. All these problems will need to be overcome.
However, completely dismissing this effort is premature. We are now witnessing unprecedented American support in Gaza’s security and reconstruction, and the involvement of multiple Arab states offers possibilities for regional cooperation.
Vance’s vision of this becoming “a domino,” as he put it, for broader normalization with Israel is something the Jewish state has been desperate for for decades, and more and more indications from foreign leaders show they also want it.
Hamas disarmament is precondition for Gaza reconstruction
The central idea is Trump’s 20-point peace framework, requiring Hamas to disarm as a precondition for the reconstruction of Gaza.
Vance offered no deadlines, itself a sign of Washington’s flexibility and a little more understanding of the region than may have been shown in the past. However, his warning to Hamas was unambiguous: “If Hamas doesn’t cooperate, Hamas will be obliterated.”
Vance’s comments on Hamas disarmament raise the point of the dilemma. He insists that it’s part of the agreed plan, backed by threats of obliteration. Yet he refuses deadlines, citing the difficulty of the work.
This honesty is also an admission that the timeline for disarmament is essentially open-ended. History suggests terror groups rarely disarm voluntarily, even under international pressure.
There was also no time limit placed on getting the bodies of the murdered hostages back, something that would have been painful for their families and all of Israel.
Vance urged patience, stating, “This is going to take a while.” For Israeli families, patience has limits when bodies remain unrecovered and answers are elusive.
The question is whether this deliberately versatile approach – balancing avoiding hard decisions about governance and setting no firm deadlines – is shrewd pragmatism of the highest order or dangerous avoidance of inevitable confrontations.
We will cross each bridge as we come to it, seems to be the message.
But Israel has learned through painful experience that agreements without enforcement mechanisms become meaningless. The coming weeks will test whether American-led optimism can translate into a durable reality.
For now, Israelis should welcome Washington’s engagement while keeping their wits about them and the huge challenges ahead. As Vance himself put it: “There are going to be hills and valleys.” Geopolitics in the Middle East has always had plenty of both.