What if the International Stabilisation Force became something very different from what its mandate promised—and how would we recognise it?
If we treat this strictly as a hypothetical geopolitical scenario—that the ISF publicly presented as a neutral stabilisation force was secretly being used by the US and Israel to establish long-term strategic control over Gaza and its surrounding energy interests—the consequences would probably be much more complicated than simply “the ISF takes over and controls the oil”.
But if the hidden objective were indeed Black Ops, this is how the scenario could evolve.
Hypothetical scenario: The ISF as a disguised strategic occupation
Phase 1 — The humanitarian justification
The operation would begin looking remarkably legitimate.
The ISF would arrive under the language of:
- protecting civilians
- delivering humanitarian aid
- preventing renewed fighting
- supervising disarmament
- training Palestinian police
- securing borders
- facilitating reconstruction
- creating conditions for Israeli withdrawal
This is particularly plausible as a political mechanism because the existing framework already gives the ISF considerable responsibilities.
Resolution 2803 permits it to use "all necessary measures" consistent with international law and gives it responsibility for demilitarisation, border areas, humanitarian operations and Palestinian security forces.
In our hypothetical, however, these would be the visible functions, not the ultimate objective.
Behind them would be a second layer of planning.
Phase 2 — Control the geography
The ISF would gradually establish control over strategically important areas.
Initially this would be justified by security.
For example:
Zone A: humanitarian corridors
↓
Zone B: security perimeter
↓
Zone C: border crossings
↓
Zone D: transport corridors
↓
Zone E: reconstruction and infrastructure zones
The important development would be that these zones begin connecting together.
Eventually, the ISF would possess effective control over the territory's:
- major roads
- crossings
- ports
- communications infrastructure
- electricity infrastructure
- water infrastructure
- reconstruction sites
- industrial areas
- potential energy infrastructure
At that point, territorial control would exist without necessarily being called occupation.
That distinction would become extremely important politically.
Phase 3 — Reconstruction becomes the mechanism of economic control
This would probably be the most sophisticated part of the hypothetical operation.
Rather than openly taking resources, the US/Israeli system could supposedly influence who receives reconstruction contracts, who finances them and who controls the infrastructure.
The current framework already envisages major international financial mechanisms and reconstruction programmes, with the Board of Peace coordinating economic recovery.
In the hypothetical scenario, reconstruction could therefore become:
Security → infrastructure → investment → economic dependency → political influence
International companies would be invited to rebuild:
- electricity networks
- water systems
- telecommunications
- roads
- ports
- industrial zones
- housing
- energy infrastructure
Contracts would theoretically be awarded according to "security" and "stability" requirements.
Over several years, this could create an economy heavily dependent upon institutions approved by the occupying/stabilising authority.
Phase 4 — The energy question emerges
This is where the scenario becomes particularly interesting.
The eastern Mediterranean has long been regarded as an important potential energy region because of offshore natural-gas resources.
If the hypothetical US/Israeli objective were resource control, the crucial target would therefore probably be natural gas and maritime energy infrastructure rather than simply "Gaza's oil".
The strategy might be:
- establish maritime security
- secure the coastline
- establish internationally recognised maritime administration
- conduct geological surveys
- develop offshore fields
- construct infrastructure
- determine who receives extraction and transport concessions
The public explanation would be:
"The resources must be developed to finance Palestinian reconstruction."
That is actually a very powerful political argument.
The hypothetical hidden objective would instead be:
"Ensure that whoever develops the resources does so within an American/Israeli-controlled economic framework."
Those two things could even happen simultaneously.
Phase 5 — The Palestinian authority becomes economically dependent
This is where the operation could become self-sustaining.
Imagine a future Palestinian administration being told: You control the government.
But:
- the ISF controls security
- international institutions control reconstruction finance
- foreign companies control major infrastructure
- external authorities control maritime security
- Israel controls or heavily influences access points
- international donors control much of the reconstruction money
The Palestinian government would possess formal sovereignty but limited practical sovereignty.
This is sometimes described in political science as indirect rule or a form of dependency.
It would be considerably more difficult to challenge than straightforward military occupation because there would be Palestinian institutions visibly running the territory.
Phase 6 — The ISF's temporary mandate keeps getting extended
This would be the critical moment.
The current authorisation is explicitly temporary, with the relevant international presence authorised through 31 December 2027 unless further action is taken.
In our hypothetical, however, the ISF would repeatedly encounter reasons why withdrawal was "premature".
For example:
Hamas remnants remain.
Then:
weapons have not been completely removed.
Then:
the Palestinian police force isn't ready.
Then:
reconstruction remains vulnerable.
Then:
border security remains unstable.
Then:
offshore infrastructure requires protection.
Then:
terrorist threats remain.
The result could be a permanent temporary force.
That is historically a very recognisable political pattern.
Phase 7 — Israel gradually withdraws, but Israeli security control remains
This would provide the operation with an important piece of political camouflage.
Israel could say:
"We have withdrawn."
Technically, Israeli troops might leave large portions of Gaza. But the ISF could assume responsibility for security in those areas.
If the ISF were secretly operating according to US/Israeli strategic priorities, Israel would have effectively achieved something remarkable:
direct military control → multinational security control.
The Israeli military presence becomes smaller and less politically visible.
But the strategic outcome remains.
Phase 8 — The resistance changes character
This is where the hypothetical operation could become extremely unstable.
Initially, armed groups would probably portray the ISF as a foreign occupation force disguised as peacekeepers.
Even Palestinians who strongly opposed Hamas might become suspicious if they believed the ISF was preventing genuine independence.
The resistance could consequently evolve from conventional warfare into:
- political mobilisation
- protests
- strikes
- sabotage
- attacks against infrastructure
- intelligence operations
- propaganda
- international legal challenges
The ISF would then face a terrible dilemma.
Every attempt to suppress opposition would make it look less like a peacekeeping force and more like an occupation authority.
Phase 9 — The first major leak
This would probably be the turning point.
Imagine journalists obtained documents showing that ISF planners had secretly discussed:
- long-term basing arrangements
- energy concessions
- maritime security
- reconstruction contracts
- intelligence-sharing with Israel
- American control of strategic infrastructure
Even without proof of an enormous conspiracy, such documents could be explosive.
The headline practically writes itself:
"Peacekeepers or Occupiers? Secret ISF Documents Reveal Hidden Strategic Plan."
The political consequences would be enormous.
Arab governments contributing troops could demand explanations. European governments could demand investigations. Russia and China would exploit the controversy diplomatically.
Palestinian leaders would call for immediate withdrawal.
Phase 10 — The oil/gas allegation becomes the central political narrative
At this point, the distinction between fact and allegation would become critical.
Even if no oil had actually been extracted, opponents could argue:
"They didn't come for peace. They came for the resources."
The accusation could spread internationally.
Social media would produce maps showing:
ISF bases → coastline → offshore blocks → pipelines → Israeli infrastructure.
Some maps would be accurate.
Others would be misleading.
Conspiracy theories would multiply.
And this could become extremely difficult for the US and Israel to counter because the existence of strategic energy interests is not itself evidence of a secret operation.
Phase 11 — International investigation
Eventually there would probably be demands for an independent investigation.
Questions would include:
Who selected the ISF commander?
Who controls its intelligence?
Who determines its rules of engagement?
Who pays for it?
Who owns infrastructure constructed under its authority?
Who receives offshore energy concessions?
Who controls maritime security?
Which companies receive reconstruction contracts?
Does Israel possess veto power over ISF deployments?
Does Washington possess effective strategic control?
Why are particular areas receiving disproportionate security protection?
Those questions would be far more damaging than simply asking:
"Is the ISF secretly American?"
Because a multinational force could technically be multinational while still being strategically dominated by one or two powers.
Phase 12 — The "oil" may actually become secondary
This is perhaps the most interesting twist.
Suppose the investigation discovered that there wasn't actually a gigantic oil bonanza. The conspiracy could still have produced a major geopolitical transformation.
The real strategic prizes might turn out to be:
Geography
Maritime access
Security architecture
Regional influence
Infrastructure
Trade routes
Energy security
Political leverage
Israeli security
US influence over the eastern Mediterranean
In other words, control of the territory itself could be considerably more valuable than the hydrocarbons underneath it.
The worst-case ending
The scenario eventually produces something resembling a protectorate.
Gaza has:
- a Palestinian civilian administration
- Palestinian police
- international reconstruction agencies
- an international security force
- foreign investment
- internationally managed infrastructure
But critical strategic decisions remain outside Palestinian control. The ISF's mandate is continually renewed. Israel retains a security perimeter. The United States becomes the dominant external power. Energy development occurs under internationally approved concessions.
And the population increasingly asks:
"If we have our own government, why don't we control our own borders, security, economy and resources?"
That question eventually becomes more dangerous to the system than Hamas itself.
The possible collapse
There are several ways the hypothetical arrangement could ultimately fail.
1. Palestinian political mobilisation
A broad movement demands complete sovereignty and the withdrawal of foreign forces.
2. Arab states withdraw support
Countries contributing troops decide that association with the ISF has become politically toxic.
3. European governments turn against it
Evidence emerges that the force is operating beyond its mandate.
4. UN legitimacy collapses
The Security Council refuses to extend the mandate.
5. A major ISF scandal
Civilian casualties, corruption or secret documents trigger an international crisis.
6. Energy contracts become controversial
A Palestinian government challenges foreign concessions and demands renegotiation.
7. US–Israel disagreement
This is particularly interesting.
The hypothetical operation might actually break down because Washington and Jerusalem eventually want different things.
The United States might favour:
a stable, internationally recognised Palestinian entity integrated into a regional economic system.
Israel's government might favour:
permanent security control and restrictions on Palestinian sovereignty.
Those objectives overlap—but they aren't identical.
The really interesting endgame
There is another possibility.
Rather than becoming an obvious occupation, the system evolves into something much subtler:
Gaza becomes internationally administered, economically reconstructed and heavily secured—but never fully sovereign.
That could last for decades.
The ISF might eventually be renamed. Its personnel rotate. Its mandate could change. Its bases could become "regional security centres". Its economic structures could become permanent institutions.
And eventually people could forget that the arrangement was originally supposed to be temporary.
That would make the hypothetical operation much more sophisticated than a conventional "US and Israel steal the oil" scenario.
It would instead be:
A security mission gradually transformed into a permanent geopolitical and economic architecture.
And that is the version of the scenario that would be most politically plausible if the underlying allegation were ever proven.
There are already legitimate reasons to scrutinise the ISF without assuming a secret oil operation.
The current arrangement gives the force unusually broad responsibilities, involves close coordination with Israel and Egypt, and places it within a wider Board of Peace structure. The UN implementation report also acknowledges that the transition remains unfinished.
Recent reporting shows that deployment itself remains politically contentious: Israel has approved entry for an initial multinational contingent, while disagreements over Hamas disarmament and Israeli withdrawal continue.
Historical examples of covert or “black ops” operations later exposed
Iran — Operation Ajax / TPAJAX (1953)
CIA and British intelligence involvement in the overthrow of Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Oil interests, Cold War concerns and opposition to nationalisation were major factors.
Guatemala — Operation PBSUCCESS (1954)
CIA-backed covert operation that helped overthrow President Jacobo Árbenz. The operation involved propaganda, political pressure, intelligence operations and paramilitary activity. United Fruit Company's interests were also an important part of the wider context.
Cuba — Operation Mongoose (1961–62)
A major covert programme aimed at destabilising and ultimately removing Fidel Castro. It included sabotage, propaganda, intelligence operations and attempts to encourage internal opposition.
Cuba — Operation Northwoods (1962)
Proposed US military plans for creating fabricated or staged incidents that could provide justification for intervention against Cuba. Northwoods was never approved or implemented, but the documents were subsequently declassified.
Chile — US covert operations (1960s–1970s)
The CIA provided funding and political support to opponents of Salvador Allende and conducted covert operations designed to influence Chilean politics. Declassified records subsequently documented substantial US involvement.
Nicaragua — Contra programme (1980s)
Secret US support for the Contra forces fighting Nicaragua's Sandinista government. The operation became particularly controversial because of the methods used to circumvent congressional restrictions.
Iran-Contra affair (1980s)
Secret arms sales to Iran and diversion of proceeds to support the Nicaraguan Contras despite restrictions imposed by Congress. The affair was eventually exposed and investigated.
Operation Gladio / NATO stay-behind networks (Cold War)
Secret stay-behind networks existed in several European countries in preparation for a possible Soviet invasion. Their existence was subsequently exposed. However, claims concerning their involvement in particular terrorist attacks remain disputed and should not automatically be treated as established fact.
Kenya — British counter-insurgency during the Mau Mau Emergency (1950s)
British authorities conducted a large-scale security and detention campaign. Later investigations and released records documented widespread abuse, including torture and ill-treatment. The British government eventually acknowledged the abuses and settled claims.
Afghanistan — covert support for the Mujahideen (1979–1989)
The CIA secretly provided substantial assistance to Afghan resistance groups fighting the Soviet occupation, primarily through Pakistan. The programme became one of the largest covert operations of the Cold War.
Angola — covert US support for UNITA (1970s–1980s)
The United States secretly supported anti-communist forces during the Angolan Civil War as part of the wider Cold War struggle.
Laos — CIA's Secret War (1960s–1970s)
The CIA helped organise and support a large clandestine military operation in Laos involving local forces and covert air operations. The scale of the operation was initially concealed from much of the American public.
Cambodia — secret US bombing campaign (1969–1973)
US bombing operations in Cambodia were initially concealed from the American public and Congress. The campaign was later exposed, generating major controversy.
Bay of Pigs / CIA operations against Cuba (1960–61)
The CIA organised and supported the failed invasion of Cuba by Cuban exiles. The operation was presented publicly in ways that obscured the extent of direct US involvement.
Operation Condor (1970s)
South American military dictatorships cooperated in intelligence sharing, political repression, kidnapping and assassination of opponents across national borders. US knowledge and relationships with participating regimes have subsequently been extensively documented, although the precise degree of US involvement varied by country and operation.
You may well have noticed a pattern; the same perpetrators are usually involved, and they seem to go for countries that have far less military capability.
Bullies, conspiracy or just coincidence - what do you think?
Note: there is currently no established evidence that the real ISF is such a black operation. The current framework publicly describes the ISF as a temporary multinational force, authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 2803, operating alongside Israel, Egypt and Palestinian security forces. Its stated responsibilities include demilitarisation, civilian protection, humanitarian corridors and border security.
Comments
Post a Comment