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.
{{ subpage.title }}
Palestinians inspect the destruction after Israeli airstrike hit Bank of Palestine in Gaza Strip Palestinians inspect the destruction after Israeli airstrike hit Bank of Palestine in Gaza Strip on September 24, 2025.
- IMAGO/APAimages via Reuters Connect
After peace, what next for Gaza?
Negotiations are ongoing to end the war in Gaza, with US President Donald Trump urging parties to “move fast” to reach a deal. But that outcome hinges on what comes next: how will Gaza be governed once the conflict ceases? Trump’s 20-point plan proposes to install a technocratic Palestinian authority with no involvement from Hamas, supervised by an international “Board of Peace.” What might this look like in practice, what can history teach us about its possible outcome, and will Hamas accept those terms?
Technocrats and trusteeship
Hamas had already agreed to"a national independent administration of technocrats" in September. Such a regime would be run by non-partisan experts chosen for their competence in various fields, such as infrastructure and financial management, to make and implement policy on a pragmatic, evidence-based basis.
But Hamas has not signed onto Trump’s proposed international supervisory board composed of himself as chair, together with notable public figures such as former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair. The board has been described as an “elite managed trusteeship.” Trump stated that it could entertain “many thoughtful investment proposals and exciting development ideas…crafted by well-meaning international groups.” The proposal sets neither a timeframe nor a path to self rule.
A trip back in time?
Comparisons are already being made to colonial structures imposed by European powers in the 19th and 20th centuries. Starting in 1820, the British controlled much of the region around the Persian Gulf and Red Sea through protectorates, treaty arrangements which saw London handle foreign policy and defense while local potentates ran domestic affairs. The goal was not nation-building, but commerce, to secure shipping lanes east of Suez to India.
That structure changed after WWI, when the League of Nations created the mandate system, supposedly to prepare former colonies for independence, including the British Mandate for Palestine in 1922. But from the start, the mandate suffered from a legitimacy problem: rule without full sovereignty. This “supervision, not control,” as the League framed it, bred resentment and resistance in the form of the Arab Liberation Army. The mandate ended in the Arab-Israeli war, partition, and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948.
What could this mean for the Board of Peace?
Some critics have decried Trump’s plan as imperialism and a means of commercial gain for the US. The involvement of Blair has also raised eyebrows: Mustafa Barghouti, the general secretary of the Palestinian National Initiative, commented, “We’ve been under British colonialism already.”
But the plan has support from the governments of Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. The plan is also backed by European powers including Spain, Germany, and the UK and France, who recently recognized the State of Palestine, as well as Canada.
Engaging Middle Eastern powers to fund or staff the technocratic authority could mitigate the perception of western colonialism, but without a timetable for sovereignty could also mire regional governments in long-term management of the territory.
Is oversight necessary?
Apart from the terms of the Board of Peace, is any board required at all? Transitional governments can take many forms: Syria is currently transitioning to democracy after decades of dictatorship, starting with votes by an electoral college, but without any foreign oversight. Other nations, like East Timor, successfully transitioned from a colonial regime to self-rule in the early 2000s after a period of oversight organized by the United Nations - but remain dependent on foreign aid for infrastructure building.
Will Hamas ever accept oversight?
Hamas has accepted three points of Trump’s plan: releasing all hostages, surrendering power, and Israel withdrawing troops from Gaza. But it has so far rejected disarmament and Trump’s international board. It remains to be seen whether these are up for negotiation - or deal breakers.
The world is on fire and the UN is running out of money
Ian Bremmer sits down with UN Secretary-General António Guterres ahead of the 80th UN General Assembly to talk about war, diplomacy, and the existential pressure on global governance.
Guterres doesn’t mince words: “What’s happening today in Gaza is morally, politically, and legally intolerable.” With conflicts raging from Gaza to Ukraine to Sudan, and funding for life-saving aid programs evaporating, the Secretary-General says the international system is failing when it’s needed most.
In a wide-ranging conversation, Guterres addresses the West’s retreat from multilateralism, the need to reform outdated global institutions, and why mid-sized powers are increasingly driving conflict—often with total impunity. He also discusses the UN’s dramatic internal cost-cutting push (an initiative he dubbed “UN80”) and why, despite a 15% budget reduction, he believes the organization can still become more effective.
“We are more capable,” Guterres says. “When you make the system more slim and more unified, you gain in efficiency."
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations(check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube.Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔). GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Israel, Iran, and the US went to war. Now what happens?
Iran, the clear loser of the 12-Day War, entered as the weakest player and came out weaker still. With Hamas degraded, Hezbollah decimated, Syria toppled, and Russia distracted, Tehran stood mostly alone. Yet its regime can claim survival, some damage inflicted on Israel, and at least partial preservation of its nuclear program—though the extent is unclear.
Netanyahu was never interested in a ceasefire. But he emerged in a far stronger position—crippling Iran’s capabilities, securing US strikes on targets Israel couldn’t reach, and reversing his political fortunes at home.
As for Trump, this is the biggest foreign policy win to date of his second term. He helped dismantle Iran’s nuclear and military infrastructure, avoided war, and saw no US blowback. Iran was already weakened—but Trump called the bluff, and so far, it’s worked. Emphasis on “so far.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).
What's next for Iran, with Thomas L. Friedman
Listen: On the latest episode of the GZERO World podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman to dissect what may go down as the most consequential month in the Middle East in years. Just weeks after Israel launched a war against Iran—and after President Trump authorized US airstrikes—an uneasy ceasefire is in place. But what was actually achieved?
Iran, the clear loser of the 12-Day War, entered as the most vulnerable player and emerged weaker still. Tehran stood largely alone, with Hamas degraded, Hezbollah decimated, Syria toppled, and Russia distracted. Yet the Islamic Republic can still claim regime survival, some damage inflicted on Israel, and a murkily intact nuclear program.
Netanyahu, meanwhile, avoided a ceasefire until he had secured key gains: he crippled Iran’s infrastructure, leveraged US firepower to hit targets beyond Israel’s reach, and rescued his collapsing political career. As Friedman notes, “The people who won this war for Israel...were, for the most part, the very same people who were in the streets of Israel for nine months against Netanyahu and his judicial coup.” That tension will only grow in the months ahead.
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're publishedYoung Iranian female protesters shout anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli slogans while participating in a protest to condemn the U.S. attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities in downtown Tehran, Iran, on June 22, 2025, amid the Iran-Israel war.
What’s next for Iran?
The United States is back at war in the Middle East: Late Saturday evening, the US military unleashed 75 precision-guided weapons, including 14 “bunker-buster” bombs, against Iran’s Fordo, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear sites. Israel followed up by hitting Fordo’s access routes on Monday. US President Donald Trump is now openly contemplating regime change.
It’s not yet clear how much damage has been done to Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Trump hailed the operation and said that the US had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, but Vice President JD Vance said Sunday the White House is going “to ensure that we do something with that fuel,” tacitly acknowledging that the Islamic Republic may still retain supplies of enriched uranium. Tehran, for its part, said it had already moved fuel and key technology away from the key nuclear sites before they were bombed.
How Might Iran Retaliate? Tehran called for revenge, but it’s not yet clear what that looks like. The original Israel-Iran war continues, as the two sides traded barrages of ballistic missiles over the weekend. Whether the US becomes further intertwined is another matter. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned in a post on X that the US attacks “will have everlasting consequences” and that Tehran “reserves all options.” Those include:
- Closing the Strait of Hormuz. Iran could sow undersea mines, ban patrols, or harass tankers by quickboat to halt travel in the Strait, which would cripple roughly 20% of global oil transit and send prices soaring – prices are already edging up in anticipation of the strait’s closure. But Tehran would also pay the economic price of withholding its chief export, which US Secretary of State Marco Rubio qualified as “economic suicide.” Iran’s parliament seems unfazed: it voted on Sunday to back a plan to close the Strait of Hormuz, pending approval by the country’s Supreme National Security Council.
- Attacking US bases. US military sites in the region are on high alert after Iran’s Revolutionary Guard labeled US troops as not a “strength” but a “vulnerability.” Tehran also said on Monday that the US attack had expanded the range of legitimate targets. Analysts estimate, however, that half of Iran’s missile launchers have been destroyed and it has significantly depleted its stockpile of roughly 2,000-3,000 missiles.
- Attacking other US interests. Iran could strike US personnel and interests in the region, according to Middle East expert Jonathan Panikoff of the Atlantic Council. It could also bide time, rebuild capabilities, and plan terrorist attacks inside the US, including cyberattacks on major infrastructure. Such tactics may not satisfy hardliners, however, and the weakened regime may feel the need for a greater and faster show of strength.
- Leveraging allies and proxies. Russia has condemned the US strikes and could become more deeply involved, with Araghchi heading to Moscow for consultations on Monday. Iran could deploy proxies Hamas and the Yemen-based Houthis – who have already vowed revenge – to attack US or Israeli sites. Hardline factions inside Iran could also gain momentum.
What Do Iranians Want?
- Domestically, public reaction is mixed: a rally-around-the-flag effect combined with ongoing grievances with the regime over economic hardship, corruption, and lack of freedoms. Critically, there’s no mass opposition movement poised to topple the regime, and tight surveillance makes it more difficult to organize.
- Outside the country, the Iranian diaspora has long advocated for reform or regime change, but the government is now limiting their influence inside the country. It has shut down the internet and deployed AI answerbots, making communication extremely difficult, limiting the news Iranians can receive and their ability to engage.
Iran looks to negotiate ceasefire
As the Israel-Iran war intensifies, Iran is seeking an urgent ceasefire, facing overwhelming Israeli military air superiority.
"They have virtually no capacity to strike back,” says Ian Bremmer in today’s Quick Take. Iran has reportedly expended 20% of its ballistic missiles, with minimal damage inflicted, while Israel has crippled large parts of Iran’s military infrastructure and nuclear program.
The US also looms large, as Ian says, “Trump is basically saying, ‘We’re not entering the war, but we will if you don’t engage in negotiations.’” A US-backed strike on Iran’s Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant remains a real threat if talks stall.
Despite widespread global condemnation of Israeli strikes, even Iran’s allies like Russia are not stepping in militarily. “Regime survival is the priority now,” Ian warns, as internal dissent grows within Iran’s leadership. But with the risk of irrational escalation rising, Ian adds: “That’s the fog of war stuff … far more likely as this war is going on.”
Can Taiwan defend itself from Chinese invasion?
Can Taiwan defend itself from a Chinese invasion? On GZERO World, Ian Bremmer sits down with Bonny Lin, director of the China Power Project at CSIS, to break down Beijing’s increasingly aggressive military maneuvers around the island and what it means for Taipei’s future. Since Taiwan’s pro-independence president William Lai took office in 2024, China has stepped up both the frequency and scale of its military operations, with daily air and naval incursions into Taiwan’s air defense zone.
It’s an alarming escalation, making the possibility of armed conflict feel closer than ever. China has made clear it’s deadly serious about using military force if it needs to: the People’s Liberation Army recently unveiled two mobile bridges that could be used for an amphibious invasion and is reportedly building a massive underground military facility near Beijing 10x the size of the Pentagon. But despite this pressure, Taiwan’s geographic separation gives it a strategic edge.
“Regardless of how capable you assess the Chinese military,” Lin says, “A Chinese amphibious invasion of Taiwan would be the most complex military operation we’ve seen in history, more complex than the Normandy invasion.”
GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, the award-winning weekly global affairs series, airs nationwide on US public television stations (check local listings).
New digital episodes of GZERO World are released every Monday on YouTube. Don't miss an episode: subscribe to GZERO's YouTube channel and turn on notifications (🔔).GZERO World with Ian Bremmer airs on US public television weekly - check local listings.
Taiwan's strategy for countering a Chinese invasion, with Bonny Lin of CSIS
On this week’s GZERO World Podcast, Ian Bremmer sits down with Bonny Lin, director of the China Power Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, for a look at one of the most dangerous flashpoints in the world: the Taiwan Strait. China has been conducting drills around Taiwan for years, but since the current pro-independence president, William Lai, took office in 2024, Beijing has been staging near-daily military exercises near the island–larger, louder, and more aggressive than ever before.
Lai has pledged to boost defense spending, strengthen ties with the US, and reduce Taiwan’s economic dependence on China. But Lai faces serious political headwinds at home. His party lost its majority in parliament, and he’ll have to navigate a deeply divided government to get anything done. Meanwhile, Chinese President Xi Jinping says reunification with Taiwan is a national priority and has made it clear Beijing won’t hesitate to take the island by force if necessary. The stakes are global: A war in the Strait would reshape the world economy, drag in major powers, potentially triggering the deadliest military conflict in the Asia-Pacific since World War II. So how far can China push, and how long can Taiwan hold out, before a crisis becomes inevitable?
Subscribe to the GZERO World Podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, or your preferred podcast platform, to receive new episodes as soon as they're published