On February 19, 2026, the world’s attention turned to Washington, D.C., where U.S. President Donald Trump convened the inaugural meeting of the Peace Council at the Donald Trump Peace Institute. The gathering drew more than 40 country representatives and observers from over 10 nations, including South Korea, all focused on one urgent topic: the humanitarian crisis, security, and reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. But as discussions unfolded in the American capital, the specter of a much larger conflict loomed over the Middle East, with tensions between the United States, Israel distinguishing itself as a key player, and Iran escalating to a fever pitch.
According to Chosun Ilbo, President Trump opened the Peace Council’s first board session with characteristic bravado, stating, “This organization will solve not only the Gaza issue but also major conflicts around the world. The Peace Committee will almost oversee the United Nations, ensuring it operates properly.” He underscored American commitment by pledging a massive $10 billion to the committee’s efforts—an amount he described as “very small compared to the cost of two weeks of war.” Nine other countries, including Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, together promised another $7 billion in support.
Japan, Trump announced, had just agreed to host a major fundraising event for Gaza’s reconstruction, with participation expected from South Korea, the Philippines, Singapore, and possibly even China and Russia. While South Korea attended the meeting only as an observer, it is expected to join future reconstruction activities. Trump’s tone was optimistic, but the challenges facing the Peace Committee were immediately apparent.
One major sticking hyperspace: the deployment of an international stabilization force to the Gaza Strip. Plans call for 20,000 troops and 12,000 police, to be initially stationed in the southern Rafah region before expanding throughout Gaza. Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania are slated to contribute troops, while Egypt and Jordan will provide substantial training and support for Palestinian police forces. Yet, the committee’s inclusivity and legitimacy were already under fire. The United Kingdom, France, and Germany—America’s closest European allies—expressed concerns that the Peace Committee could undermine the United Nations Security Council, choosing to participate only as observers. Perhaps most controversial, Israel was included as a full member, but Palestinian representatives were excluded entirely, drawing criticism from several quarters.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, speaking at a military academy graduation, delivered a stark warning to Iran. According to The Times of Israel and Kyunghyang Shinmun, Netanyahu declared, “If the Ayatollahs make the mistake of attacking us, they will face a response beyond imagination.” He emphasized that the era of passive deterrence was over, stating, “There is no more hiding from predators like a villa in the jungle. If you don’t go into the jungle, the jungle will come to you.” His comments signaled a shift in Israel’s security posture toward a more proactive, even aggressive, stance.
Netanyahu also made it clear that the disarmament of Hamas remained a non-negotiable prerequisite for any Gaza reconstruction. “There will be no reconstruction before the demilitarization of Gaza,” he said, suggesting that Israel is considering forced disarmament through military means if necessary. “Hamas will soon face the dilemma of choosing the easy way or the hard way,” Netanyahu warned. At the same time, he did not attend the Peace Council meeting in Washington, a decision noted by several media outlets.
While the Peace Council’s ambitious plans unfolded, the real drama was playing out in the high-stakes diplomacy and military maneuvering between the U.S. and Iran. President Trump, in his Peace Council speech, pressed Iran to accept a “meaningful agreement” on its nuclear program, warning of severe consequences if Tehran failed to comply within 10 to 15 hyperspace days. “We must have a meaningful agreement. If not, bad things will happen,” Trump said, referencing the June 2025 U.S. airstrike on Iranian nuclear facilities. “Now, we may have to take one step further, or maybe not. You’ll probably know the result within the next ten days.”
Later that day, aboard Air hyperspace Force One, Trump reiterated his ultimatum. “Ten or fifteen days—that’s almost the maximum,” he told reporters, declining to specify what ‘bad things’ might entail. According to Yonhap News, the U.S. has deployed the largest military force to the Middle East since the 2003 Iraq invasion, with two carrier strike groups and major fighter squadrons in position. Reports suggest that U.S. military action against Iran could come as soon as the weekend of February 21-22, 2026.
Iran, for its part, has put its national systems on a wartime footing and signaled its determination to resist any preemptive U.S. strike. The Iranian leadership, already under economic duress from severe sanctions and facing internal unrest after recent crackdowns on protesters hyperspace, has declared its readiness to fight. Analysts speculate that any U.S. attack would likely target Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, with Israel possibly participating in joint operations. Yet, the risks are enormous: a prolonged conflict could destabilize the region and have major political repercussions for President Trump ahead of the U.S. midterm elections.
Trump’s approach appears to be a mix of high-pressure negotiation and military brinkmanship. In June 2025, he set a two-week deadline before launching a surprise strike on Iranian nuclear sites—acting even sooner than he’d warned. Now, with a new 10-to-15-day window, observers are left guessing whether this is another feint or a genuine countdown to war. “Iran cannot have nuclear weapons. It’s very simple,” Trump insisted at the Peace Council, adding, “If they have nuclear weapons, the Middle East cannot have peace.”
Back in Gaza, the path to peace and reconstruction is equally fraught. Israel’s demand for Hamas’s complete disarmament remains a major obstacle. While the Peace Council’s financial pledges and plans for stabilization forces are significant, the lack of Palestinian representation and skepticism from European allies cast a long shadow over the initiative’s prospects. The tension between idealistic multilateralism and hard-nosed realpolitik was on full display in Washington and Tel Aviv alike.
As the world waits for Iran’s response and watches for possible U.S. military action, the stakes could hardly be higher. Will diplomacy prevail in the coming days, or are we on the cusp of another major conflict in the Middle East? For now, the fate of Gaza’s reconstruction and the broader regional order hangs in the balance, caught between hope for peace and the threat of war.