On September 27, 2025, reports from major British media outlets set off a wave of international speculation: could former UK prime minister Tony Blair soon become the face of a post-war Gaza transitional authority? The idea, which has been quietly brewing in diplomatic circles for months, is now out in the open, with Blair’s name at the center of US-led discussions about the future of the embattled Palestinian territory.
According to the BBC and The Economist, Blair has been engaged in talks with the administration of US President Donald Trump and other key stakeholders on the formation of a new governing body for Gaza. The proposed entity, known as the “Gaza International Transitional Authority,” would operate under a United Nations mandate, aiming to serve as the supreme political and legal authority for a five-year period before transferring control to the Palestinian people. The details are still emerging, but the plan envisions a secretariat of up to 25 members and a seven-person board, initially based in Egypt near Gaza’s southern border before relocating to Gaza itself when conditions allow.
Blair, who held the post of Middle East peace envoy from 2007 to 2015, is no stranger to the region’s diplomatic labyrinth. The Financial Times reported that he has expressed interest in being part of the authority’s supervisory board, and some sources suggest he could even chair it. For now, the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has declined to comment on the swirling reports, maintaining a studied silence as the story unfolds.
Blair’s involvement is not entirely unexpected. In July 2025, his institute participated in a project aimed at developing a post-war plan for Gaza. According to the Financial Times, Blair was present at a late August White House meeting convened by President Trump to discuss Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and the territory’s future. Trump has floated ambitious—and controversial—ideas for the region, including transforming Gaza into the “Riviera of the Middle East.” However, this vision has raised alarm bells internationally, as it is rumored to involve the forced displacement of Palestinians, a move that would be widely condemned.
Despite the speculation, sources close to Blair have been quick to clarify his stance. They confirmed to The Economist that he opposes any plans to permanently displace Gazans. In their words, “any transitional governing body for the territory would ultimately hand power back to the Palestinian Authority, based in Ramallah in the West Bank.” The Tony Blair Institute itself has emphasized that none of its talks on post-war reconstruction have included the idea of forcible relocation of people from Gaza.
So, what would this transitional authority look like in practice? As described by The Economist, the authority would seek a UN mandate to act as the supreme political and legal authority for a five-year period, after which power would be handed over to the Palestinian people. The secretariat—up to 25 members strong—would work alongside a seven-person board, overseeing the transition process. Initially, the authority would operate out of Egypt, close to Gaza’s southern border, before moving into Gaza itself once the security situation stabilizes.
The proposal has attracted notable supporters. On September 26, 2025, former Mossad chief Yossi Cohen praised the idea during an interview with BBC Radio. “I love the idea,” he said, calling Blair a “wonderful person.” Cohen added, “If he is willing to take this responsibility, which is huge, I think … there is a hope for Gaza. I think that he can bear that burden strongly.” Cohen’s endorsement is significant, reflecting a degree of Israeli openness to the plan—at least in principle.
However, Blair’s potential appointment is not without controversy. His legacy as UK prime minister remains deeply intertwined with the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq—a war justified by intelligence that was later found to be deeply flawed, as confirmed by an official UK inquiry. That history continues to cast a long shadow, especially in the Middle East, where memories of the Iraq conflict linger and skepticism about Western intervention runs deep.
For some, Blair’s track record as a Middle East peace mediator offers hope. During his tenure from 2007 to 2015, he navigated some of the region’s most intractable diplomatic challenges. Supporters argue that his experience, connections, and credibility with both Western and regional actors could make him uniquely qualified to guide Gaza through a turbulent transition. “He’s got the gravitas and the relationships,” one unnamed diplomat told The Economist. “If anyone can bring the parties together, it might be him.”
Yet, for others, Blair’s involvement is a red flag. His role in the Iraq war remains a point of contention, with critics arguing that it undermines his legitimacy as a neutral peace broker. The official UK inquiry into the conflict found that Blair had acted on flawed intelligence when committing Britain to the invasion, a conclusion that has dogged his political legacy ever since. For many Palestinians, the idea of a Western-led authority—especially one headed by a figure associated with the Iraq war—raises uncomfortable questions about sovereignty, justice, and the long-term intentions of international actors.
Amid all this, the practicalities of the proposed transitional authority loom large. Would the UN and Gulf nations provide the necessary support and resources? Could the authority operate effectively from Egypt before moving into Gaza? And most importantly, would the Palestinian people accept such an arrangement as legitimate, or see it as yet another imposition from outside powers?
For the Trump administration, the plan represents an effort to break the cycle of violence and instability in Gaza, while also advancing US strategic interests in the region. Trump’s vision of a transformed, prosperous Gaza—however fanciful it might seem to some—reflects a desire to reframe the narrative and offer a new path forward. But the specter of forced displacement, which many observers view as a non-starter, threatens to derail any serious progress before it even begins.
As of now, the Tony Blair Institute is keeping its cards close to its chest. When pressed by The Financial Times about Blair’s potential role, the organization declined to comment. That silence speaks volumes, suggesting that negotiations are still at a delicate stage and that much remains to be decided behind closed doors.
What is clear is that the fate of Gaza hangs in the balance. With Blair’s name now in the mix, the debate over who should shape the territory’s future—and how—has taken on new urgency. Whether the “Gaza International Transitional Authority” will become a reality, and whether Blair will lead it, remains to be seen. But the world is watching, and the stakes could hardly be higher.
In a region where hope is often in short supply, some see the proposal as a rare glimmer of possibility. Others, wary of past failures and broken promises, urge caution. As the diplomatic chess game continues, all eyes are on the next move—and on whether Gaza’s future will finally be determined by the people who call it home.
