Ahmed Kamel – Egypt Daily News
President Donald Trump issued a stark warning to Hamas on social media, saying U.S. allies in the region have both “the capability and the willingness” to move against the Islamist movement if it violates the terms of the fragile ceasefire in Gaza. The message marks a sharper, more forceful posture from the United States as international pressure mounts to implement the truce and the broader, U.S.-backed 20‑point plan for Gaza’s post‑conflict transition.
Trump said he had received assurances from several allied countries that, if asked, they “would welcome the opportunity” to intervene decisively in Gaza to “put Hamas in its place” should the group continue what he called “bad behavior” and breach the agreements reached during recent mediated talks. He stressed that an immediate military intervention was not sought at this time, and offered Hamas a window to “do the right thing.” But he warned bluntly that any failure to comply would be met with a response that would be “swift, angry and brutal.”
The warning comes against the backdrop of a tenuous lull in fighting and ongoing negotiations that aim to stabilize the Gaza Strip, secure the return of hostages and remains, and curtail Hamas’s military capabilities. Key elements of the agreement include the handover of bodies of Israeli captives, the release of Palestinian prisoners, and measures to limit the movement or rearmament of militant groups — conditions that remain difficult to implement amid devastated infrastructure and contested control on the ground.
U.S. preference for regional actors
Analysts say the tenor of Trump’s statement signals a strategic shift: rather than deploying American forces directly, the United States is signaling it prefers regional partners to carry out any coercive measures. That approach fits with a long-standing U.S. inclination to avoid large-scale boots‑on‑the‑ground commitments, while still leveraging American influence to coordinate allied action. “The message is both deterrent and delegatory,” one commentator observed: deterrent to Hamas, delegatory toward regional states that could be asked to act in the field.
Yet such an option faces formidable political and logistical obstacles. Outside states would confront the complex task of dismantling Hamas’s tunnel networks and armed infrastructure, securing populated urban areas, enabling aid and reconstruction, and preventing a rapid slide back into renewed violence. Any intervention by Arab or Muslim-majority countries would also need to navigate domestic public opinion and regional geopolitics, where support for Palestinian causes runs high.
Humanitarian and implementation challenges
Implementation of the ceasefire’s humanitarian provisions has been slow. Reports indicate serious gaps between agreed aid flows and cargo actually entering Gaza, and there remain unresolved disputes over the identification and recovery of the remains of Israeli captives trapped under rubble. Hamas officials have said they are committed to recovering and returning bodies but cite extreme difficulties damage, lack of heavy machinery, and dangerous conditions that hamper retrieval efforts.
The fragility of the truce and the incomplete delivery of its terms are central to Washington’s warning. U.S. officials and mediators have repeatedly emphasized that the truce and the next-stage security arrangements depend on reciprocal compliance: tangible steps by Hamas to limit its military posture, and coordinated international action to stabilize Gaza and jumpstart civilian governance.
A regional enforcement model with global implications
Reports circulating among diplomatic circles envision a regional stabilization force not a traditional U.N. blue‑helmet mission, with a more robust operational mandate to secure Gaza’s key crossings, buffer zones and critical infrastructure during a transitional period. Under such scenarios, Egypt and other regional actors have surfaced as potential lead contributors, though national governments are reportedly cautious about the political cost and the legal framework for such an operation. The United States is said to be seeking a U.N. Security Council authorization tailored to the unique requirements of that mission.
British and other Western officials have reportedly signaled support for a model that pairs international security oversight with a technocratic transitional Palestinian administration, under international supervision, to prepare the Strip for eventual reintegration into a broader Palestinian political framework. But diplomats acknowledge that disarming Hamas and ensuring sustainable, locally accepted governance arrangements will be the most politically fraught and technically demanding phase.
A dual message: deterrence and diplomacy
Trump’s warning serves two simultaneous purposes: to deter Hamas from undermining the ceasefire and to communicate to regional and global partners that the United States expects allied participation should coercive measures be necessary. It is as much a diplomatic signal to backstopping governments as it is a direct threat to Hamas leadership.
For now, the administration says it prefers to exhaust diplomatic and mediated channels. But the bluntness of the president’s language underscores the high stakes: failure to implement the ceasefire’s security and humanitarian clauses could invite an unprecedented regional intervention one aimed at reshaping Gaza’s postwar security landscape without committing U.S. combat troops.
The path ahead remains uncertain. The success of any plan will hinge on rapid increases in humanitarian aid, transparent mechanisms for recovering and accounting for the missing and deceased, credible steps toward limiting militant capabilities, and the willingness of regional states to shoulder the political and operational burdens of enforcement. Until those pieces are in place, Trump’s warning will stand as both an ultimatum and an insurance policy its ultimate meaning defined by what unfolds next on the ground in Gaza.
