Two analysts: Trump's plan for Gaza repeats the scenario after the invasion of Iraq.

Two political analysts stated that U.S. President Donald Trump's plan to stop the war in Gaza is vague and raises doubts, pointing out that there are concerns that the proposed "Peace Council" may resemble the U.S.-British strategy following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, especially with the suggestion of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair to oversee the management and reconstruction of the sector.

In statements to the Associated Press, Naomi Bar-Yacob, a researcher at the Geneva Center for Security Policy, said that it is likely that Hamas will not accept the proposed agreement. She added that the movement is also likely to request further clarifications and guarantees, as it is currently being asked to release all living and deceased prisoners (within 72 hours of both sides accepting the plan). Israel estimates the number of remaining prisoners in Gaza to be 48, of whom 20 are on life support.

Bar-Yacob pointed out that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not present the plan for a vote in his government, but rather only for a vote on the first 72 hours of the ceasefire, indicating that this gives an idea of how difficult it is to implement the American plan.

As for Snam Vakil, the director of the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, she sees that the proposal raises questions and doubts. Vakil told the Associated Press regarding the suggestion of Tony Blair's name to oversee (with Trump) what is called the "Peace Council" that Blair's reputation may have been damaged more within the United Kingdom than abroad, as he has high-level connections with policymakers from various backgrounds, especially in the Middle East.

She added that the problem with this council is that there may be little accountability for it, explaining that it seems similar to a strategy followed by the U.S. and Britain during the Iraq War.

In her comments on Trump's plan regarding Gaza, she said, "There are no details, no substance, no clarity about who will do what, when, where, and how. There are no timelines, no deadlines. And this, you know, raises questions and stirs all these doubts." She viewed that the proposed framework is vague and will be subject to interpretations, explaining that these conflicting interpretations will ultimately lead to an explosion, either quickly or gradually.