By: Abel Josafat Manullang

The war in Gaza has been a bloody chapter in the Middle East’s recent development, given how long and how severe the destruction has been. Following the ceasefire back in late 2025, President Trump introduced yet another initiative to oversee the post-war reconstruction of Gaza. That initiative, known as the Board of Peace, would make its debut in January 2026 in Switzerland.

The Board of Peace was set to be an international oversight body comprised of the US and other states. A look at the logo provides some semblance to that of the United Nations, albeit with a US-centered map.

One of the driving forces behind its creation is President Trump’s disappointment with the United Nations’ incapacity to live up to its potential in protecting the peace and security of the world. That potential can be seen in the many bodies within the United Nations, as well as conventions and efforts it has spearheaded across various fields.

That sentiment is somewhat amplified by the body’s failure to end numerous conflicts in the last few years alone, ranging from the war in Gaza to the war in Ukraine, and many other conflicts across the globe. With such a noble goal of peace in its name, not to mention the severe destruction in Gaza, such an initiative should be welcomed to set the stage for the reconstruction and recovery of the people.

However, it is important to note the source of this very initiative, Washington, and the way in which it has acted on the global stage. Hence, akin to the siren songs that sailors might hear, could this initiative from the giant be the light at the end of the tunnel or another pitfall to avoid?

A Stage for Escalations

Given the primacy that Washington holds in the Board of Peace, it is important to assess its recent undertaking abroad. This can be seen in its entanglements in various conflicts, primarily in the Middle East.

Washington has stood in Israel’s beck and call across the many bloody chapters of the war in Gaza. It has shielded Israel from international condemnations and provided Israel with the wherewithal, both funds and arms, to enact its aggressions. Beyond the ground confrontation in Gaza, it has helped Israel against the threat of the Houthi and Iran in both diplomatic and military senses. In short, it would go the distance to ensure Israel got the leeway to carry out its interests.

Fast forward to the first quarter of 2026, and we have witnessed new aggressions carried out by the US, especially in the Middle East, particularly against Iran. As if the 2025 12-day War was not enough, it again raised the ante by initiating another attack on Iran with Israel. 

Now, the international community has to suffer the consequences as Iran closed the Hormuz Strait, which brought to the table fear of energy shortage, considering the waterway’s importance for international trade.

Setting aside the severe damage it caused and who has suffered, which includes Washington’s allies, those strides showcase the unilateral and capricious nature of Washington. Among others, it shows how the US is willing to shove aside international laws, norms, and the interests of other states, including its allies, for the sake of its own interests or those it deems to be in line with it.

With the so-called Board of Peace’s initiator being active in the escalations, it warrants a critical examination of its purpose. Is it a noble initiative or just a siren song to lure unsuspecting states into supporting Washington’s interests?

The Board of Peace: Hope in Jeopardy?

The unilateral nature and the way the Board of Peace is set, along with the recent strides Washington took, should have been some notable cautionary signs of what is to come from the initiative. 

To begin with, it is important to note the US-centric nature of the board. This can be seen in the exhortation on the US president’s role as the chairman who holds enormous sway in the board’s decision-making. 

The US-centric nature, along with the growing capricious tendency of Washington, especially in resorting to drastic measures, should serve as a warning to those who seek to join it. The combination of the aforementioned traits suggests that the board is less of a multilateral institution than a unilateral one.

While it cannot be denied that the stated goal of the board is beneficial, one cannot turn a blind eye to the way it is done on Washington’s terms. It is even more difficult to work one’s way around, given the sheer power Washington holds and its considerably untrammelled approach.

Such a condition does not mean that the international community should simply accept any initiative Washington proposes, rather, it invites a more critical understanding of its implications and the leeway that can be used solely for Washington’s interests. 

Previous examples have shown how Washington doesn’t ponder too long when it comes to dishing out punitive measures, but states must consider the long-term strategic repercussions of relying on the increasingly capricious Washington. Hence, the international community will need to undergo some growing pains; they need to grin and bear it as they readjust their respective compass.

All things considered, every state must take a more critical approach in assessing Washington’s offers and strides. While an outright rejection or isolation from Washington is not viable, staying vigilant of Washington’s change of heart remains more important than ever. 

Amidst the many intricate developments in the international system, the last thing everyone wants is another false signpost that would misguide them even more. 

---

*Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any organization, institution, or group with which the author is affiliated.

About the writer: 

Abel Josafat Manullang is a writer at SiPalingHI! Media and a researcher of the Research Development House. He has developed numerous works surrounding maritime security and regional dynamics of Southeast Asia and other regions, which can be accessed through his Google Scholar page.