Connect with us

Opinion

From Baghdad to Gaza: Will History Repeat in Post-War Governance?

US explores Gaza transitional rule, echoing Iraq’s CPA, raising concerns over legitimacy and stability

Published

on

US explores Gaza transitional rule, echoing Iraq’s CPA, raising concerns over legitimacy and stability

The United States and Israel are reportedly exploring the idea of Washington leading a temporary post-war administration in Gaza, according to individuals familiar with the matter. The talks center around forming a transitional government led by a U.S. official that would take control of Gaza until the territory has been demilitarized, stabilized, and a viable Palestinian government can be put in place.

The concept draws parallels with the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) that governed Iraq after the 2003 U.S.-led invasion. While early-stage and lacking a fixed timeline, the Gaza proposal would also likely exclude Hamas and the Palestinian Authority, instead relying on Palestinian technocrats and potential participation from moderate Arab states.

The CPA, led by L. Paul Bremer from May 2003 to June 2004, was tasked with governing Iraq in the wake of Saddam Hussein’s ouster. Officially called the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority, Bremer wielded sweeping executive, legislative, and judicial powers. His role closely resembled that of a medieval viceroy—a historical figure who acted as the monarch’s representative in distant territories, overseeing both civil governance and military affairs.

In medieval and early modern times, viceroys were typically dispatched to rule over colonies or contested regions. Their job was to maintain the authority of the crown, implement policies, and manage local affairs. Much like Bremer’s authority in Iraq, these viceroys often ruled with absolute power, answering directly to the sovereign but operating with a high degree of autonomy on the ground.

While viceroys were meant to serve as loyal stewards of empire, many became infamous for poor governance, corruption, or heavy-handed tactics. Some notable examples include:

Lord Dalhousie, India (1848–1856): As Governor-General of India, a role similar to a viceroy, Dalhousie pursued aggressive policies of annexation under the Doctrine of Lapse, which allowed the British to seize territories from local rulers who died without a male heir. His expansionist policies fueled deep resentment, contributing to the outbreak of the Indian Rebellion of 1857.

Antonio de Mendoza, New Spain (1535–1550): The first viceroy of New Spain (now Mexico), Mendoza initially earned praise for stabilizing the colony but later faced criticism for harsh treatment of indigenous peoples and the forced labor systems implemented under his watch.

José Fernando de Abascal, Peru (1806–1816): Abascal’s tenure as viceroy of Peru was marked by brutal repression of independence movements. His severe policies only deepened the resolve of rebels seeking liberation from Spanish rule, further destabilizing the region.

Advertisement

Lord Curzon, India (1899–1905): Known for his intelligence and administrative reforms, Curzon is also remembered for his controversial decision to partition Bengal in 1905, which sparked widespread protests and intensified anti-British sentiment.

Bremer’s CPA in Iraq is now seen as a cautionary tale of how transitional governance can go wrong. By disbanding the Iraqi Army, purging the bureaucracy through de-Ba’athification, and failing to restore law and order effectively, the CPA alienated Iraqis and fueled insurgency. Despite its mission to rebuild Iraq, the CPA’s perceived status as a foreign occupation government deepened divisions and stoked resistance.

Like viceroys of old, Bremer was granted sweeping authority with the aim of stabilizing a fractured region. Yet his tenure demonstrated that ruling by decree without adequate local legitimacy and understanding of the social fabric can have disastrous consequences.

The current discussions about Gaza raise similar concerns. Any transitional authority would face the immense challenge of balancing military security with the need for political legitimacy. Excluding both Hamas and the Palestinian Authority could leave a vacuum of local leadership, and relying solely on technocrats risks overlooking the political dynamics on the ground.

Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar has already floated a vision for a transitional period, suggesting an international board of trustees that would include moderate Arab countries working alongside Palestinians under their guidance. Such a framework could broaden regional legitimacy, but persuading Arab states to participate—especially under a U.S.-led initiative—may be diplomatically challenging, particularly given the sensitivities around Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

Another key concern is the selection of the lead administrator. Just as Bremer operated as a modern-day viceroy, the Gaza authority would likely require a figure with significant diplomatic and crisis management experience. However, history shows that no amount of administrative skill can substitute for local legitimacy and grassroots buy-in. The CPA’s legacy reveals the dangers of relying too heavily on foreign experts while marginalizing local voices.

Any transitional authority in Gaza would also need to set clear, transparent milestones for demilitarization, reconstruction, and the eventual handover of power. One of the main criticisms of the CPA was its lack of clear benchmarks and timelines, which led many Iraqis to believe that the U.S. intended to occupy their country indefinitely. In Gaza’s case, the absence of defined goals could generate similar distrust and potentially exacerbate tensions on the ground.

A robust security apparatus, built with vetted local recruits, would be essential for maintaining order. Yet balancing security with civil rights and ensuring that basic services—such as electricity, clean water, and medical care—are consistently delivered would be equally critical in winning hearts and minds.

Advertisement

The path forward remains uncertain. Both U.S. and Israeli officials have refrained from publicly confirming the details of these discussions. But if history offers any guidance, the stakes are high. Transitional administrations can either serve as bridges to peace and self-rule or become symbols of foreign domination and mismanagement.

History provides clear lessons: transitional authorities and viceroy-like roles may temporarily impose order but often fail when they lack deep local engagement and legitimacy. Whether in colonial India, Spanish America, or post-war Iraq, foreign-led governance has repeatedly sparked backlash, particularly when local grievances are ignored or mismanaged.

If the U.S.-led Gaza proposal moves forward, it will need to learn from these historical missteps. Any administrator must prioritize inclusive governance, clear milestones for transition, and respect for local agency. Without these, the effort risks being remembered not as a bridge to peace but as yet another chapter in the troubled history of foreign intervention.

US explores Gaza transitional rule, echoing Iraq’s CPA, raising concerns over legitimacy and stability
US explores Gaza transitional rule echoing Iraqs CPA raising concerns over legitimacy and stability

Dean Mikkelsen is a freelance writer and contributor at The Washington Eye, specialising in geopolitics, energy, and security. With over two decades of editorial experience across the Middle East and the United States, he offers nuanced analysis shaped by both on-the-ground reporting and strategic insight.

Dean’s work spans a range of publications, including Oil & Gas Middle East, Utilities Middle East, and Defence & Security Middle East, where he covers topics from energy transitions to maritime threats. He has also contributed to titles such as The Energy Report Middle East and MENA Daily Chronicle, providing in-depth coverage on regional developments.

In addition to his writing, Dean has been featured as an expert commentator on platforms such as BBC Persia and ABC News Australia, and has been quoted in The National and Arabian Business.

An engineer by training, Dean combines technical knowledge with journalistic rigour to explore the intersections of diplomacy, defence, and trade in a complex global landscape.

Opinion

The Washington Eye: A Bold Vision in Global and U.S. Journalism

Published

on

Washington eye

The Washington Eye is an independent news platform founded on a clear mission: to bring truth to light with courage, context, and credibility. We are not just another media outlet — Washington Eye is a sharp, bold vision for modern journalism in a noisy world.

We believe that news should inform, not manipulate. That stories should go deeper than headlines. And that journalism must serve the public, not power.


What We Stand For

🔹 Independent Reporting
The Washington Eye is free from corporate influence and political bias. Our loyalty is to truth and to the readers who seek it.

🔹 Global & U.S. Coverage
From the heart of Washington D.C. to global conflict zones, our reporting spans across politics, economics, social justice, and human stories.

🔹 Critical Thinking
We challenge narratives. We fact-check everything. We ask the hard questions others avoid.


What You’ll Find on Washington Eye:

  • Politics: Deep analysis of U.S. government, policy, and elections.
  • World News: Geopolitical developments and global affairs.
  • Business: Markets, money, and the changing economy.
  • Opinion: Thought-provoking insights from independent voices.
  • U.S. Focus: Stories that matter to Americans, from coast to coast.

A Platform with Purpose

The Washington Eye exists to empower citizens through accurate information and fearless storytelling. We’re here to shed light — not add to the noise.

Whether you’re a reader, contributor, or simply curious, you’re welcome to be part of a news movement that values clarity, truth, and depth.


Washington Eye — Journalism That Sees Through the Noise.

Continue Reading

Business

From Barter to Bitcoin: The Journey and Future of Currency

Currency is trust, coordination, and stability; without it, society and global trade collapse rapidly

Published

on

Currency is trust, coordination, and stability; without it, society and global trade collapse rapidly


by: The Washington Eye
Currency is one of the most significant inventions in human history, yet many of us overlook its importance in our daily lives. At first glance, money seems simple—coins in your pocket, bills in your wallet, or digital numbers in a bank app. But beneath its surface lies a complex system of trust, governance, and economic coordination. Currency works because people believe it works. It is not just a tool for buying and selling; it is a shared agreement among individuals and institutions that a certain object—whether paper, metal, or digital code—holds value and can be exchanged for goods and services.

Before currency came into existence, human societies relied on the barter system. In barter, people exchanged goods and services directly. This method, while natural in small communities, had major limitations. It required a double coincidence of wants: both parties had to want what the other had. If you had wheat and wanted shoes, but the shoemaker didn’t want wheat, you couldn’t trade. Currency solved this problem by serving as a universally accepted medium of exchange. Early currencies included commodities like salt, cattle, or gold—items considered valuable and difficult to fake. Eventually, these evolved into coinage and paper money, often backed by physical commodities such as gold and silver. In modern times, we use fiat money, which has no intrinsic value but is declared legal tender by governments and accepted because people trust the system behind it.

Today, central banks and financial institutions manage currency through complex tools like interest rates, inflation targeting, and money supply regulation. When handled well, these tools can stabilize the economy, foster investment, and generate employment. But mismanagement—such as excessive money printing—can lead to disastrous consequences, including hyperinflation. Historical examples like Zimbabwe or Venezuela demonstrate how quickly a currency can become worthless when public trust is lost. Without faith in currency, prices skyrocket, savings vanish, and economies collapse.

Now imagine a world without currency. Would we return to barter? Perhaps, but that would bring back the same inefficiencies that currency was invented to solve. More likely, alternative systems would emerge. These could include commodity money like gold or oil, decentralized digital currencies such as Bitcoin, or even systems of social credit or labor exchange. Each of these, however, has its flaws. Cryptocurrency, for example, promises decentralization but remains volatile and vulnerable to speculation. Commodity money might favor nations rich in resources and deepen inequality. Social credit systems, while potentially fair, could also become tools of control and surveillance.

A world without currency would likely cause global trade to collapse. Currency provides a common unit of account that allows us to price goods, calculate profits, and manage contracts. Without it, international transactions would become chaotic. Supply chains would stall, and financial markets would lose their foundations. Moreover, debt and long-term contracts rely on stable money. Without currency, these agreements lose meaning. Lending would slow down, investments would halt, and the global economy would become stagnant.

Some idealists imagine a future where money is no longer needed—where technology, automation, and abundance make everything freely accessible. In such a society, resources could be distributed based on need rather than ability to pay. This vision, promoted by movements like The Venus Project, presents a post-currency economy guided by logic and sustainability. But achieving this would require more than technological advancement. It would demand a radical transformation in human behavior, moving from competition to cooperation, and from ownership to shared access. Such a shift, while theoretically possible, is not likely in the near future.

Ultimately, the question is not whether we can eliminate currency, but how we can use it more equitably. As the world becomes increasingly digital, currencies will continue to evolve—through blockchain, central bank digital currencies, and global financial reforms. But the fundamental role of currency as a tool for coordination and trust will remain. Rather than dreaming of a currency-free utopia, our focus should be on building systems that make currency work for everyone, not just the privileged few. Currency is not just about money; it is about meaning, fairness, and the structure of our economic lives. Without it, society as we know it would unravel.

Currency is trust, coordination, and stability; without it, society and global trade collapse rapidly
Currency is trust coordination and stability without it society and global trade collapse rapidly
Continue Reading

Opinion

The Middle East Bermuda Triangle for Peace and Security

Middle East stability requires KSA-USA-Israel alliance, countering Iran and China, ensuring regional peace

Published

on

Middle East stability requires KSA-USA-Israel alliance, countering Iran and China, ensuring regional peace

The decades of wars and tensions in the Middle East have reached a point of no return and any ceasefire will not cut the deal for peace and stability in the region.  Which is a requirement for the New Middle East and a New World Order by 2030.  Therefore, the scenarios of the geopolitics of the region are no longer a classic one with Iran as the “Torch” holder of hegemon.  The aging and decaying system of Iran exemplified by the so-called Ayatullah Khamenei the Supreme Leader, becomes irrelevant in a futuristic worldview. 

A system based on false theology, or an apocalyptic mission, will only serve as the axis of evil.  Such mission was rapidly spreading in the last few years by a movement called “Shiatization” of the world, which is basically a global movement aims to manipulate youth around the world to become paramilitary soldiers implementing a prophecy of the resurrection or “the reappearance” of the 12th Imam Mohammed Al Mahdi a descendent of the Prophet Mohammed according to the Shia sect of Islam.  It is important to note that based on this myth; a false claim the Quran does support; the Shiatization movement has a significant role of destruction and in creation of a total dystopia as a pre-requisite condition for “the reappearance” to happen.  

Therefore, the Middle East and particularly the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) have stepped in as a prominent power in the region with a clear vision of 2030 for the Middle East.  The KSA under the Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS) have taken bold steps to strengthen the relationship with the United States with President Trump in Office.  The two leaders of a vastly different worlds and backgrounds, have significant and noticeable friendship as business men and Heads of States.  The world witnessed the success of the Saudi-American Economic Forum in Riyad in May 2025, and massive investments for years to come.  Granting the sanctions lift of Syria and allowing its new leadership to have a chance to stabilize Syria and save the lives of millions of the Syrian people, meant a lot for MBS and showed confidence in his regional leadership.  Same goes with the other Gulf Countries during President Trump’s visit to the region to ensure that Arabs are solid allies to the United States of America.  What is remarkable about Trump and MBS, is that both share the undeniable prospect of the Middle East once it has peace and stability in place.  The 2030 vision of the Crown Prince MBS is that eliminating the Iranian/IRGC intrusive violent interference of the proxies in Iraq, Syria (under Assad), Lebanon with Hezbollah, Houthis in Yemen and Hamas in Gaza.  Only then, the alliance of Arab nations could enter into real peace agreements with Israel. 

Furthermore, the U.S.-Israel relationship will also need to step up given the decades of alliance and ironclad ties, Israel, cannot live in isolation from its regional neighbors.  Thus, a Bermuda Triangle must be secured as KSA-USA-Israel.  The US as the trusted ally to both countries, and Trump as a trustworthy leader to both MBS and Benjamin Netanyahu.  Both who might seem rivalries, they are in fact have more in common including a core value of peace and security in the region.  The tactics or approaches might differ significantly, but that can be addressed through soft-diplomacy the trademark of KSA, not the arm twisting, but rather building on common grounds.  For instance, both leaders count on the peoples in the region, Arab Muslims, Kurds, Druz, Christians, Jews, Persians, Bloshs, Azaris, and many other ethnic and religious minority groups.  Both leaders want to establish and secure economic prosperity and wealth of resources including sustainable energy resources and agriculture.  Therefore, if President Trump could bring KSA and Israel to the negotiation table with realistic expectation rather than selling new maps, the future of the region would very well be worth every effort for peace. 

Finally, how Middle East Bermuda Triangle effect the United States? i.e. what is the Return of Investment for the America First and Make America Great Again?  The wealthy region will be entirely a strong ally to the US, not only economically, but also in every industry concerns the American superiority such as the energy, minerals, trades, water passages, and overall presence.  The Middle East peace and security or as I call it the “Bermuda Triangle” will be a massive buffer zone against China which is creeping into Africa using Iran as its proxy which is actively spreading the Shiatization movement that entails more terrorists’ organizations like Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, and the militias in Iraq.  The alliance between Iran and Egypt and Algeria is not for bilateral diplomatic relations, but rather a destruction power to threaten Israel and to sabotage the West Sahara Desert Agreement with Morocco. China through Iran will increase their exploitation to African countries to ensure destabilization and attacks on U.S. interests in the continent.   In addition, the China-Iran alliance have funded operations, based on open-source intelligence reports, to reach American soil by exploiting open border policy of the Biden Administration, and have established training and grooming camps in Cuba and Venezuela. 

In conclusion, the Bermuda Triangle Peace and Security of the Middle East through the U.S., the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Israel is a necessity for world peace and security; by forcing the Islamic Republic of Iran to hand down its torch of hegemon by Peace through Strength Policy of the U.S. of the Trump Administration.  The power of KSA and Israel together will hold the fragile region together and build it up from ruins.  The KSA legitimately can unite the Arab countries for peace and stability without leaving Israel in isolation.  While the U.S. will have a greater presence with solidified allies and partners to counter the greater global threat of China and its proxy of Iran. 

Middle East stability requires KSA-USA-Israel alliance, countering Iran and China, ensuring regional peace
Middle East stability requires KSA USA Israel alliance countering Iran and China ensuring regional peace
Continue Reading

Trending