Doha, December 16, 2025 - Total News Agency (TNA) - The conference held this Tuesday in Doha, led by the United States Central Command (CENTCOM), concluded without concrete agreements on the eventual deployment of an international security force in the Gaza Strip, leaving open the main political and military questions surrounding the initiative.
Despite the expectations generated around the meeting, there were no definitions on the mandate, the rules of intervention, or the real scope of a mission that, for now, remains shrouded in ambiguity.
According to European diplomatic sources present at the meeting, the forum failed to resolve the central aspects that continue to block any operational progress.
In theory, this meeting sought to deepen technical and operational aspects, although diplomatic sources admit that without a prior political definition, substantial progress is unlikely.
The lack of resolutions in Doha reflects deep international divisions over the future of Gaza and highlights the limits of the US initiative at this stage.
The possibility of the mission being trapped between police tasks, military functions, and contradictory political objectives generates strong reservations, especially in European countries.
The debate on the eventual disarmament of Hamas was another of the topics that was deliberately left open.
Others, however, warned that involving international troops in that objective would be equivalent to dragging them into a direct conflict with unpredictable consequences.
As the only concrete result, it was agreed to advance in a follow-up meeting of the chiefs of the military General Staff planned for next January, although the venue and detailed agenda have not yet been defined.
In particular, no consensus was reached on whether the force would have a purely stabilizing role or if it would be enabled to intervene directly in sensitive tasks such as the disarmament of Hamas, a point considered critical and highly controversial by several of the invited countries.
The conference was presented as a continuation of the preliminary talks held weeks ago in Washington.
While Washington tries to build a post-conflict security architecture, its partners show caution towards a mission whose scope, risks, and final objectives remain diffuse.
In this context, the conference sent a clear signal: the idea of an international force for Gaza continues in an embryonic phase, closer to the diplomatic than the operational ground.
The proposal included references to the need to guarantee minimum security conditions in Gaza after the conflict, facilitate humanitarian aid, and prevent a power vacuum that could be exploited by terrorist organizations.
However, after this initial presentation, the meeting turned into a more exploratory than resolutive exchange.
The delegations agreed that without a precise definition of the force's attributions, its relationship with Israel, the Palestinian Authority, and local actors, any commitment is premature.
Some delegations considered that an international force without the capacity or mandate to address this issue would run the risk of becoming an irrelevant actor or, worse, a factor of indirect legitimization of the armed status quo in Gaza.
Without a defined mandate, without political consensus, and without clarity on its relationship with local armed actors, the project remains trapped in a zone of indefiniteness that postpones any real deployment and maintains uncertainty about the immediate future of the Palestinian enclave.
