The Board of Peace is built to expire with the Trump presidency. A UN mandate, for all its flaws, is how Washington keeps it alive.

Gaza does not lack plans. It is drowning in them—and the most consequential comes with an expiration date.

The planning underway by the Board of Peace is a commendable effort to put a framework of political transition and reconstruction around the ceasefire. The initiative is sanctioned by UN Security Council resolution 2803; the major Arab states are among the founding countries, and its director-general, Nickolay Mladenov, is a dynamic diplomat who has spent months developing the Board’s blueprint.

US Army Major General Jasper Jeffers has developed a credible plan for an International Stabilization Force of 20,000 troops and a new 12,000-strong Gazan police force. The European Commission has taken steps to engage with the Board’s near-term humanitarian projects, and senior UN officials have highlighted the Board’s indispensable current role.  

But there are significant challenges and institutional shortcomings, including Hamas’ refusal to lay down its arms and decommission its tunnels (its recent commitments notwithstanding), and Israel’s insistence on reserving the right to target Hamas leaders and infrastructure until the group disarms.  

The Board’s key Arab members are hedging, including co-leading and donating to competing Gaza initiatives. Almost all European countries, including France, Germany, and the UK, continue to keep the initiative at arm’s length.

Above all, the Board of Peace’s legitimacy will be called into question, if not evaporate, in January 2029 when Board Chairman and US President Donald Trump leaves the White House and most of its executive board will be private American citizens. Indeed, the fight over the Board’s legitimacy could surface as early as next year, with the current UN Security Council resolution expiring in December 2027. Without course correction in the next few months, the uncertainty surrounding the Board of Peace could harm American interests in the region in the coming years.

Gaza and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict featured prominently during the speeches at the annual UN General Assembly (UNGA) gathering in New York in September. A succession of world leaders took turns condemning Israel, while ignoring or downplaying more serious humanitarian crises and threats to international peace and security. UNGA week saw a slew of Gaza-related meetings, including an Arab and Muslim ministerial, a Saudi-French-British-Canadian leaders’ session, an Egypt-France-Germany-EU recovery roundtable, a UNRWA fundraiser, a Saudi-Norwegian-EU two-state solution gathering, and a Board of Peace briefing.

The proliferation of uncoordinated initiatives relating to Gaza is hard to square with the work being done under the auspices of the Board of Peace. Mladenov’s team and the Palestinian technocrats who comprise the National Committee for the Administration of Gaza have spent months making their own plans for humanitarian projects, reconstruction, and political transition. It’s far from clear how implementing these plans will intersect with other initiatives backed and funded by dozens of countries—some of whom are also key Board of Peace members.

There is simply too much at stake in Gaza and the wider Israeli-Palestinian conflict—perhaps the most politicized dispute in recent human history—for Washington to gamble on a project that is so intimately associated with one administration and that continues to be viewed warily by many of America’s closest allies, even those associated with the Board. Privately, Gulf officials say they don’t see how the Board, unmodified, can outlive the Trump presidency.

Getting Gaza wrong can undermine America’s relations with key Arab allies and further erode Israel’s international standing. America’s strategic and economic partnership with Israel is too important to risk by leaving a vacuum where the Board of Peace could fade away in 2028–2029.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Ambassador to the UN Mike Waltz should lead an effort to bring the Board’s fledgling architecture into a UN Security Council-endorsed and American-led framework, one with a UN imprimatur but with considerable operational autonomy. Specifically, the Board’s Gaza architecture should transition into a Peace Implementation and Reconstruction Mission (PIRM), governed by a new, US-chaired Steering Committee of Member States (instead of the current Board of Peace executive board and associated Gaza executive board).

Mladenov would continue as director-general and be supported by an American deputy—both would report to, and be selected by, the Steering Committee. An American general would command the stabilization force, outside the UN chain of command, reporting to the Steering Committee. Next year’s renewal process for UN Security Council Resolution 2803 offers an opportunity to secure endorsement of PIRM as a long-term presence in Gaza and integrate key European and Arab allies into the effort. With key partners like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, France, and Germany on the Steering Committee, competing Gaza efforts could be subsumed into PIRM and funded through a US-chaired trust fund.

The UN-sanctioned PIRM concept would make it more palatable for countries to fund reconstruction and contribute troops to Gen. Jeffers’ ISF. In addition, Mladenov would lead coordination of the UN agencies in Gaza, including transitioning humanitarian and education programs away from UNRWA (which should no longer operate in Gaza) to entities like UNICEF, UNDP, and UNOPS with which Israel’s Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories currently collaborates. 

Critically, America’s continued leadership in the overall effort would provide the government and people of Israel with the assurances they need to trust the international efforts afoot in Gaza.

There is a long way to go in Gaza. Hamas remains dangerous, and Israel can never allow the events of October 7, 2023, to be repeated. President Trump’s creation of the Board reflects his commitment to making headway. The best way to safeguard that legacy, and to lock in allies’ long-term funding and troops, is an enduring US-led mission with a UN imprimatur. American leadership will reassure Israel, and international backing will sustain the effort after this presidency ends. Gaza needs both.

About the Author: Ludovic Hood

Ludovic Hood is a senior fellow with Hudson Institute’s Center for Peace and Security in the Middle East. His research focuses on US Middle East policy, Gulf regional security, Israel, the Arab states, Iran, and Lebanon. A foreign service officer for 20 years, Mr. Hood has deep expertise in Gulf regional security and US Middle East statecraft. He served at US embassies in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, and France. In Washington, DC, he served as chief of staff and counselor to General Keith Kellogg, the special presidential envoy for Ukraine; senior adviser to Ambassador Deborah Lipstadt, the special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism; special adviser for the Middle East to Vice President Mike Pence; and senior Lebanon desk officer.

The post Why Gaza’s Board of Peace Needs a UN Mandate appeared first on The National Interest.