Hamas Disarmament Framework Unveiled: How Gaza Peace Plan Could Remake the Middle East

Inside the Gaza Disarmament Proposal: What’s in the Framework

For the first time since Hamas seized control of Gaza in 2007, the group’s massive military arsenal is the subject of a concrete international disarmament plan. On Friday, US President Donald Trump announced an agreement for the "complete disarmament" of Hamas, calling it a "historic" breakthrough toward Gaza being governed by a new Palestinian administration. The roadmap, mediated by Egypt, Qatar, Turkey and the US, comes in the wake of the US-Iran war that has severely strained Tehran’s network of proxy forces — a moment diplomats believe has opened a rare window for demilitarization.

The proposal envisions a phased process of 200–350 days under international supervision. It does not demand an immediate weapons handover; instead, each step of Hamas’s disarmament is linked to corresponding Israeli obligations. These include verified dismantling of tunnel networks and weapons production sites, gradual Israeli troop pullbacks from designated areas, and deployment of an international stabilisation force. At the same time, a technocratic Palestinian administration would replace Hamas’s governing authority, with humanitarian aid and large-scale reconstruction projects expanding as security benchmarks are met. Limited amnesty would be offered to Hamas members who renounce violence, while others could relocate abroad under supervision.

Israel remains deeply sceptical that Hamas would voluntarily dismantle its military capability after nearly two decades of rule. Officials stress any deal must include robust verification to prevent rebuilding. Meanwhile, Hamas negotiators have disputed Trump’s claim that the group has fully accepted the framework, insisting its cooperation hinges on a complete cessation of Israeli operations, unrestricted aid, and a credible pathway to Palestinian statehood. Weapons, they say, would initially be placed in secure storage rather than surrendered outright.

The plan also creates a layered governance structure: a US-led "Gaza Board of Peace," a Founding Executive Board chaired by former British PM Tony Blair and including Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner and World Bank President Ajay Banga, a Gaza Executive Board for reconstruction, and a National Committee for the Administration of Gaza composed of apolitical technocrats. An international stabilisation force backed by countries such as Indonesia and Morocco would maintain security alongside a newly trained local police force. A follow-up meeting in Cairo is expected to lock in commitments to the second phase of the ceasefire.

Why Iran Faces a Strategic Loss and Israel Stays Cautious

Iran’s Axis of Resistance Under Fire

The disarmament of Hamas, if successful, would deal a major strategic blow to Iran. For decades, Tehran has supplied Hamas with money, weapons, training and intelligence, enabling it to pressure Israel without direct Iranian involvement. With the recent US-Iran war already degrading the Islamic Republic’s military infrastructure and its allied militias across the region, the loss of an armed Hamas would effectively sever a key pillar of Iran’s "Axis of Resistance." That outcome would not only diminish Iran’s ability to project force in the Israeli-Palestinian theatre but also signal to other proxy groups that Tehran’s support is not limitless — a message that could accelerate the unraveling of its entire network. The Axios report that Iran’s Revolutionary Guard tried and failed to persuade Hamas to reject the US-backed framework underscores the erosion of Iranian influence.

Israel’s Verification Dilemma

Israeli officials view complete demilitarisation as non-negotiable but remain deeply unconvinced that Hamas will follow through. The group’s track record of rearming during truces, the presence of other armed factions like Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the concealment of weapons in civilian areas all create immense verification challenges. Even a phased disarmament leaves enormous room for cheating. For Israel, the credibility of any monitoring mechanism will be the difference between a genuine security transformation and a trap that could expose its southern border to renewed attacks. The insistence on linking disarmament to Israeli withdrawals — without which Hamas will not move — creates a circular trust deficit that mediators have yet to solve.

The Forgotten Militants: PIJ and Smaller Factions

While Hamas dominates Gaza’s armed landscape, several smaller groups also carry out attacks. Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ), Iran’s second major proxy in Gaza, is not party to the agreement and has historically rejected any accommodation with Israel. The Popular Resistance Committees, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine all retain armed wings. Disarming Hamas alone would leave a fractured security environment, and bringing these factions on board — likely without the same combination of carrots and international guarantees — will be far more difficult. Any failure to do so could allow these groups to become spoilers, triggering violence that unravels the entire framework.

A New Economic and Political Reality

The creation of the Gaza Board of Peace and the involvement of heavyweight financial and political figures signal an ambition to use reconstruction as a lever for lasting stability. A demilitarised Gaza would open the door to billions of dollars in international investment for housing, energy, water and transport infrastructure, potentially transforming the strip into a functioning economic zone. For the Palestinian public, the promise of jobs, homes and services could become the strongest incentive to support the new order — if the benefits materialise quickly and are not undermined by renewed conflict or corruption. The technocratic administration model, excluding Hamas, mirrors earlier international post-conflict state-building experiments, but its legitimacy among Gazans will depend on whether it can deliver tangible improvements without being seen as a puppet of external powers.

What the Deal Means for Reconstruction, Security and Diplomacy

While the disarmament agreement remains fragile, the steps outlined already create concrete implications for businesses, investors, and policymakers monitoring the region.

• Reconstruction contracts on the horizon. The Gaza Executive Board and World Bank President Ajay Banga’s direct role signal that large-scale infrastructure, energy, and logistics projects will be tendered if security holds. Firms with experience in post-conflict reconstruction should begin tracking the Board of Peace’s early decisions and the formation of the international stabilisation force for concrete procurement signals.
• Energy market stabilisation. A durable Gaza ceasefire and reduced risk of wider Israeli-Iran escalation could remove a geopolitical risk premium from oil markets. However, any collapse of the deal involving Iranian proxies elsewhere would have the opposite effect.
• Security and training opportunities. The new Gaza police force and international stabilisation force will require equipment, training, and advisory services. Partner countries like Indonesia and Morocco have already signalled involvement, creating openings for defence and security consultancies.
• Diplomatic credibility at stake. For the US and mediating states, failure to implement verifiable disarmament risks damaging their reputation as honest brokers. The sequencing challenge — Israel will not withdraw without disarmament, Hamas will not disarm without withdrawal — means a visible, independent verification mechanism is the make-or-break component. Investors and diplomats should watch for the Cairo meeting’s output on this front.
• Iran’s further isolation creates secondary risks. If Hamas does disarm, Iran may accelerate support to remaining proxies in Lebanon and Yemen, raising instability elsewhere. Companies exposed to those regions should factor in a heightened risk of asymmetric retaliation.