Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
Israel
U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference in the East Room at the White House in Washington, U.S., February 4, 2025.
Recent US intelligence reports indicate Israel is considering strikes on Iranian nuclear sites in 2025. The assessment, produced during the waning days of the Biden administration, suggests Israel sees an opportunity to act in the face of Iran’s weakened military capabilities, loss of regional allies, and economic challenges.
If a strike is carried out, Eurasia Group expert Greg Brew says Iran’s nuclear program would likely be “damaged but not destroyed” and that any such move would need US involvement to “eliminate the risk that Iran dashes to a bomb immediately after.”
Any meaningful strike would require extensive US involvement – from providing munitions and possibly aircraft to offering defensive support against Iranian retaliation. A truly successful operation would have to target fortified facilities like Natanz and Fordow, which are both deeply entrenched underground, and only US military capabilities can effectively reach them.
That means it’s Trump’s call. Although the US president has reimposed his “maximum pressure” policy against Iran, Brew says, “Trump has made it clear that he’s more interested in talking, not bombing — at least initially.”
But, Brew adds, “It’s possible the timely leak of these intel reports is part of a US strategy, presenting Iran with two options: Make a deal, or Israel will bomb you.”
President Donald Trump meets with Jordan's King Abdullah in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, on Feb. 11, 2025.
While meeting with Jordan’s King Abdullah II at the White House on Tuesday, Trump reiterated his intention to “take” Gaza, displace its two million residents to nearby countries, and turn it into the “Riviera of the Middle East.”
Middle Eastern states are set to meet in Saudi Arabia to come up with their own plan, which they will present to Trump, but Abdullah was cautious and noncommittal while in the Oval. Later, in a social media post, the king said that during his meeting with Trump he “reiterated Jordan’s steadfast position against the displacement of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank” and called this “the unified Arab position.”
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, meanwhile, said this week that he will not visit Washington for talks on the Middle East while Trump’s Gaza displacement plan is on the agenda.
But Trump has threatened to cut off crucial US aid to Egypt and Jordan unless they comply. Cairo and Amman each receive about $1.5 billion annually in military and other aid from Washington.
Palestinians walk through the destruction caused by the Israeli air and ground offensive in Jabalia refugee camp in the northern Gaza Strip on February 12, 2025. Donald Trump has called for the expulsion of Gazans and the redevelopment of the enclave as a US-controlled "riviera."
Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi has reportedly signaled he will scrap an upcoming visit to the White House if President Donald Trump’s plan to expel Palestinians from Gaza and redevelop the enclave as a US-controlled “riviera” is on the agenda.
Trump wants to resettle Gaza’s roughly 2 million people in Arab countries, mainly Jordan and Egypt. Both countries have rejected this plan, which could destabilize their own societies, invite the risk of future Israeli strikes, and legitimize the ethnic cleansing and dispossession of the Palestinians.
Trump has threatened to cut off crucial US aid unless they comply. Cairo and Amman each receive about $1.5 billion annually in military and other aid from Washington. Egypt alone has received more than $80 billion in US military and economic aid since the late 1970s, in exchange for making peace with Israel.
On Tuesday, Jordanian King Abdullah II was visibly uncomfortable during a White House visit, where he offered to accept 2,000 sick Palestinian children but punted on the broader plan.
Egypt insists that Gaza be reconstructed for the Palestinians. A five-way Arab summit including Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar is set for the end of this month.
El-Sissi’s move raises the stakes considerably, as it directly defies Trump, who earlier said of Arab refusal to accept Palestinians: “They say they won’t accept, I say they will.”
Meanwhile, Saudi puts Bibi on blast. The kingdom’s state-overseen media launched an uncharacteristically furious attack on Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu, reflecting broader Arab anger at Trump’s plan, which Netanyahu supports.
Saudi Arabia has for years been exploring a US-brokered normalization deal that would entail formal recognition of Israel in exchange for US security guarantees. But Riyadh’s one stipulation has been that Israel must take irreversible steps toward creating a Palestinian state. Trump’s “riviera” plan for Gaza is, to say the least, not that.
President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Jordan's King Abdullah attend a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, on Feb. 11, 2025.
As for the rest of the population, the monarch said he would “wait for Egypt,” which has been leading negotiations so far, to weigh in. “I think we have to keep in mind there is a plan from Egypt and the Arab countries,” Abdullah said. “I think the point is, how do we make this work in a way that is good for everybody?”
Trump had threatened to withhold aid from Egypt and Jordan unless they receive Palestinians but suggested on Tuesday that “I do think we’re above that.” Trump’s vision for the territory remains unchanged, however: “[W]ith the United States being in control of that piece of land … you’re going to have stability in the Middle East for the first time.”
Meanwhile, in Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s security cabinet unanimously endorsedTrump’s deadline for the release of the remaining hostages: The US president said Monday that all hostages must be returned by Saturday, or “Let all hell break out; Israel can override it.” Trump’s deadline came in response to Hamas saying it would delay the next hostage release, set for Saturday, and accusing Israel of violating the ceasefire.
Who’s gained ground – and who’s lost? According to Eurasia Middle East analyst Greg Brew, Jordan’s placating of Trump was “a win for Abdullah, who depends on US aid, and who has adamantly rejected the idea of displacement. This doesn't mean Trump has given up, only that we shouldn’t expect mass displacement of Gazans to Jordan any time soon.”
And despite Trump’s stark message about the hostages, Brew believes there is still room to maneuver. “It’s possible Hamas and Israel get through this latest impasse,” he says, “but it points to the fragile nature of the ceasefire and the unpredictable role Trump is playing.”
President Donald Trump before the Super Bowl.
Over his first month in office, President Donald Trump has presented a range of policy prospects as possible. He has also undertaken a wide number of presidential actions. Together, these measures have shifted the global context, leaving partners and rivals to orient to a vastly changing reality and wonder how seriously they should take him.
Trade dissonance
Despite campaigning on US trade imbalances and promising to impose global tariffs, many doggedly doubted Trump’s intentions as president. When he suggested on Truth Social last December that his administration would introduce 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico by Feb. 1, with a 10% additional tariff for China, the market held its breath. A common refrain of wait and see made the rounds. Colombia’s near-miss in late January when Trump threatened to escalate tariffs if the country did not accept military deportation flights sparked concern but felt further afield.
The mixed response to Trump’s tariff threats belies a cognitive dissonance that surrounds him and his administration. But there’s one thing anyone who’s followed Trump’s political career over the last decade should know: to believe him when he tells us what he intends to do. When he offers up an idea in a press conference, lists it on a webpage as a promise to be kept, posts about it on Truth Social, repeats it hundreds of times on the campaign trail, puts policy in place around it as president, and establishes a new governmental agency (the External Revenue Service) to execute, it is a pretty safe bet he plans to impose the tariffs.
On Feb. 1, the Trump administration formally announced tariffs on Canada and Mexico, with an additional 10% tariff on imports from China. When both Canadian and Mexican leadership reached out to Trump with commitments on border safety and curbing the flow of illegal drugs, the president agreed to a 30-day tariff reprieve. China offered no such concessions, and now the two are locked in a potentially accelerating dance of trade threats and investigations. With incoming levies on steel and aluminum, the Trump administration has already shown that it plans to rely over and over on pulling the tariff lever to further its trade agenda. This is the truth.
Foreign aid dismantling
As the new administration pursued its trade plan ambitions, details of another policy shift emerged: the apparent unwinding of the US Agency for International Development. The sudden reversal in 60 years of US foreign aid policy caught many working in the agency off-guard and sent ripples across the development community. Global headlines highlighted impacts on health missions, sustainability and climate initiatives, and frontline staff in Ukraine. Long a foundational component of American soft power, a US retrenchment on foreign aid likely opens the door for other global participants like China to step through.
Even with the fallout tally still being counted, the USAID decision was a foreseeable reaction to developing facts on the ground. Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office “reevaluating and realigning US foreign aid.” According to the order, “The United States foreign aid industry and bureaucracy are not aligned with American interests and in many cases antithetical to American values.” Trump immediately implemented a 90-day pause in US foreign development assistance. Likewise, in his capacity as head of the new Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk has persistently targeted USAID as a “criminal organization” and “beyond repair.”
Drowned out by attention on some of the administration’s more headline-grabbing maneuvers like an end to “Birthright Citizenship” and an extended pause on the TikTok ban, the impact on US foreign aid was initially overlooked. But the underlying context was there. This is another truth.
Middle East dismay
Trump saved the boldest declaration of his young administration for the arena of US hard power. Last week, Trump proposed an alternative trajectory for the Middle East: He repeatedly called for Egypt, Jordan, and others to accept millions of Palestinians from Gaza. At a press conference following meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Trump took it a step further, suggesting that “The US will take over the Gaza Strip, and we will do a job with it too.”
Trump’s plan to “own” Gaza and convert it into the “Riviera of the Middle East” stunned the global audience. While Trump’s plans struck like lightning, they were not without prior seeding. According to reports, a thread of redeveloping Gaza has been woven at times throughout the Trump presidential campaign, including by the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner early last year. In response, voices ranging from the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammed bin Salman to the French foreign ministry raised deep concerns. Even still, as farfetched as Trump’s Gaza ambitions may seem, they provide a barometer of how far the current administration is willing to push the envelope. A fabrication, for now, but with designs on converting some kernel – “a concept of a plan” – into reality.
In describing the “historic proposal” for the US to take over Gaza, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt explained that “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Through a breakneck pace of policy change and action, the Trump administration has demonstrated a willingness to rethink the “same thing.” Everyone else is left to calibrate to the new dynamics, pondering if it just might all turn out to be truths.
Lindsay Newman is a geopolitical risk expert and columnist for GZERO.
HARD NUMBERS: Chinese marriages fall, Romanian president resigns, Bangladesh police arrest hundreds, Palestinian Authority may scrap “martyrs’ payments.”
A group wedding at the Harbin Ice and Snow World on January 6, 2025 in Harbin, Heilongjiang Province of China. As the population continues to decline, the Chinese government has been trying to boost marriages and fertility rates.
20: The number of marriages in China fell to 6.1 million last year, 20% lower than in 2023 and down by more than 50% since 2013. The marital malaise is part of a bigger demographic crisis facing China. Although it boasts the world’s second-largest population, at 1.4 billion people, the country’s population is declining. Until 2015, the state enforced a “one child” policy to avoid urban overcrowding. But since then high costs of child care and education have stymied government efforts to encourage people to have children.
6: At least six people were detained Monday during celebratory demonstrations in Bucharest following the resignation of Romanian President Klaus Iohannis. Iohannis has been under pressure to step down since the annulment last December of the election to pick his successor after a social media campaign allegedly organized by Russia helped a little-known far-right candidate to win. Although Iohannis’ term has ended, he was trying to stay in power until the rerun election in May. This triggered criticism and protests over the perception that, on top of involvement in the unpopular decision to scrap the election results, he was acting unconstitutionally by exceeding his term.
1,300: Police in Bangladesh have arrested at least 1,300 supporters of former PM Sheikh Hasina, who was ousted in mass protests last August that were touched off by a backlash against certain hiring quotas in the civil service. Since then the interim government has struggled to tamp down tensions between supporters of Hasina, a strong female leader who came to power in 2009, and her opponents. Hasina herself is currently in exile in India.
20: The Palestinian Authority, which enjoys limited self-rule in the West Bank, has reportedly signaled to the Trump administration that it could scrap its controversial “martyrs’ payments.” Under this 20-year-old policy, the PA gives financial support to the families of Palestinians killed or wounded while carrying out acts of violence against Israel or who are imprisoned by Israel. The PA has often framed the policy as a social welfare measure under conditions of occupation, while critics say that it’s a “pay to slay” policy that simply encourages more violence and terrorism.
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: Want to talk about Gaza, which has not been as much in the headlines over the past month because so much other news has been emanating from Washington post Trump's inauguration. But he made some news on Gaza and it's relevant to the ongoing war and ceasefire, which is this idea that the United States is going to take over Gaza, develop it and make it into the Riviera, a new Riviera on the Mediterranean. Certainly they have the beachfront property, they don't have the infrastructure, especially not after the war over the last year plus. Trump saying that no US troops would be involved, but it's an enormous opportunity. The Palestinians would have to be resettled. It's not a new plan. He's been talking about this for the last year together with advisors. The idea that there's an enormous amount of money, particularly from the Gulf, that could be interested in investing on the ground. That security could be provided by the Egyptians. That the Palestinians could be temporarily resettled in Egypt, maybe in Jordan.
They would, at least in principle, have the right to return. But I mean, how much money? Probably $20 billion minimum. What's temporary mean? Probably talking about a generation. Are the Palestinians likely to believe that given what's happened on the ground in the West Bank? Hard to imagine. What does governance for the Palestinians look like? Well, Trump no longer supports a two-state solution, which he did support back in the days of the Abraham Accords. Others in the region certainly do, and they, at least in principle though, they're not willing to do an awful lot to bring that about. Of course, the two-state solution, if you are Arab in the region, doesn't necessarily mean democratic governance after all, with the exception of Israel. It's not like you have democratically elected governments across these states. So you're probably talking about something more technocratic and appointed. But still, what's happened is as Trump has been discussing this, the Jordanians and the Egyptians are unhappy and saying, "No way will they take any Palestinians."
The Gulf states are unhappy. The UAE, which has discussed some of this plan with Israel directly, slow rolling how much they'd be willing to do. The Saudis saying they don't support it. And so Trump with all of that and with Prime Minister Netanyahu coming to Washington DC said, "Fine, I'll make an announcement by myself. I'll just do it if you refuse to be a part of it." And then the US diplomats were spending day and night back channeling with Gulf allies saying, "He didn't really mean he was going to take over all of it. He's not planning on taking over the land. Don't worry about it." What I would say is this is an opening strategy to try to get all of the states in the region together with Israel and negotiate what the development of Gaza would possibly look like. To get some commitments for investment. To get some commitments for security.
And there's a lot of space between all of the Palestinians are resettled because certainly they're not all interested in leaving. But some of them certainly are. And you can hardly blame them even though it's their homeland because there is nothing left and it's really hard to get humanitarian aid in, and it's not likely to get meaningfully better, even with the ceasefire, which may not hold up anytime soon. And given the fact that 80% of Israelis polled in the Jerusalem Post, which is a pretty middle of the road survey group and media institution in Israel, say they want all of the Palestinians in Gaza resettled. Given that and given the fact that if you were to engage in reconstruction that security would be necessary, there's going to be an effort to at least create buffer zones, which means more resettlements internally and a desire to allow Palestinians that want to leave the ability to leave.
And Trump would love to create some facts on the ground there. The way he's creating facts on the ground by bringing some illegal migrants in the United States to Guantanamo. There aren't facilities for them, so they set up some tents. But even if it's only one or two planes, suddenly it becomes a policy. And that's precisely what the Trump administration wants to see with the Palestinians and Gaza is that if you are getting out a few busloads or a few shiploads or a few plane loads, then suddenly it's not a question of can they be resettled, but how many and over what time? It's a very different policy discussion, and that's exactly where they and the Israeli government are looking to get to. Now, who's going to take these Palestinians? Right now nobody. Trump was asked if he was going to be willing to, if the United States what his response was, "Well, it's really too far," which doesn't seem to be his perspective for the white Afrikaners in South Africa who are even farther away.
So maybe it's not really about distance. It might be something else. But nonetheless, I do expect that when Trump says that the Egyptians and Jordanians will take some, that if they are paid to take some and what some means and what kind of population and how they're going to be vetted is all to be discussed. But some would not surprise me at all, might be a matter of hundreds or a few thousand. I don't think it's a matter of hundreds of thousands. But again, it starts that conversation. It changes the policy. And especially if we end up reopening the fighting in Gaza, which I think is quite likely over the coming weeks and months, then there becomes more urgency to engage for some of the Palestinians there in more resettlement, more willingness to. So that's what I think this is all about right now.
We are not close to a Palestinian state. We are not close to a broad agreement that would allow the Gulfies to engage fully in what Trump is demanding or to expand the Abraham Accords, to include Saudi Arabia opening diplomatic ties with Israel. But all of this is on the table and is the backdrop for what Trump is putting forward right now. So that's what we're talking about and something we'll be watching really closely. Hope everyone's doing well, and I'll talk to you all real soon.