The Trump Doctrine in Gaza, An Asymmetric Struggle for Control and the Illusion of a Deal
The fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, a tenuous construct born from immense international pressure and transactional diplomacy, is currently undergoing its most severe test. The agreement, which was meant to chart a path from relentless conflict to a tentative peace, is fraying at the edges, revealing the profound asymmetries and inherent contradictions in the geopolitical landscape. At the center of this maelstrom stands former and, in the context of this article’s future-looking perspective, once-again U.S. President Donald Trump, whose muscular, deal-centric approach to foreign policy is being put to the ultimate test in the volatile theater of the Middle East. The emerging picture, as articulated by observers like Professor Khimvraj Jangid, is a curious paradox: while the Trump administration appears to wield unprecedented control over its traditionally steadfast ally, Israel, its influence over the non-state actor, Hamas, remains negligible and fraught with challenges. This dynamic is not just a temporary imbalance of power but a fundamental reshaping of the conflict that carries significant implications for regional stability, Israeli sovereignty, and the very nature of American diplomacy.
The Immediate Flashpoint: The Grim Politics of the Dead
The current crisis within the ceasefire process hinges on a macabre and emotionally charged issue: the return of the bodies of Israeli citizens taken captive during Hamas’s October 7, 2023, attacks. According to the phased agreement, Hamas is obligated to locate and return these remains. However, as reported by the BBC, approximately 13 bodies remain in Gaza, and their return has stalled. This has created a significant point of contention, with two prevailing interpretations of Hamas’s delay.
On one hand, there is the possibility that the logistical nightmare of a war-ravaged Gaza, with its collapsed infrastructure and countless bodies buried under rubble, is genuinely preventing Hamas from locating the remains. On the other hand, and more ominously, many analysts suspect this is a deliberate stalling tactic. By prolonging this phase, Hamas delays the inevitable and most consequential next step: its disarmament. The surrender of weapons is the core of the ceasefire’s “real test,” a point at which the militant group’s fundamental reason for being would be directly challenged. This deadlock over the bodies has already had violent consequences. In the past week, Hamas killed an Israeli soldier in northern Gaza, an action that triggered a devastatingly disproportionate response from the Israeli army, which launched attacks killing over 100 Palestinians in a single day. In the ensuing blame game, Qatar, a key mediator and an ally of President Trump, pointedly defended Israel and accused Hamas of violating the ceasefire terms, illustrating the international pressure being brought to bear on the group.
The Trump-Netanyahu Dynamic: A Master and a Reluctant Client
While the immediate conflict is between Israel and Hamas, the more revealing power struggle is occurring between Washington and Jerusalem. In a move demonstrative of both commitment and deep-seated distrust, the Trump administration has deployed approximately 200 U.S. military personnel to Israel. Their stated purpose is to support monitoring and coordination, but their presence, coupled with American drones conducting direct surveillance over Gaza, sends an unambiguous message. This level of on-the-ground U.S. military involvement in monitoring the conflict is unprecedented in the war’s recent history and signifies a direct, hands-on approach from the White House.
The political pressure was equally palpable last week with the high-profile convergence of the Trump administration’s top brass in Jerusalem. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Vice President J.D. Vance all made appearances, creating a powerful visual of American oversight. The message, as Professor Jangid notes, was clear: “We (the American establishment) are calling the shots here.” For Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, this public display of American suzerainty created a domestic political nightmare. He was forced to perform a delicate balancing act: publicly appearing resolute and not bowed by American pressure to reassure his right-wing base and coalition partners that Israel remains a sovereign state, not an American “client state,” while simultaneously acquiescing to Washington’s demands behind closed doors.
The substance of American demands is encapsulated in the reported “Trump 20-Point Gaza Plan.” While the full details are not public, its implications are clear enough to have provoked the ire of Israeli hardliners. The plan likely involves significant Israeli concessions and a roadmap that diverges from the maximalist goals of the settler movement. This was starkly underlined by Trump’s blunt statement that “Israel will lose all the support from the U.S. if it annexes the West Bank.” This was a direct blow to the ambitions of the right-wing settler movement and a clear demarcation of American red lines. For Netanyahu, this external pressure is both humiliating and useful. It allows him to outsource the politically toxic burden of making peace to the Americans, deflecting domestic anger over the war’s failures and casualties. Yet, it also starkly exposes the limits of Israeli sovereignty, revealing how deeply it is tethered to the whims of American politics—a vulnerability that will only intensify as the next U.S. electoral cycle approaches.
The Hamas Conundrum: Ideological Freedom in a Asymmetric Fight
In stark contrast to its firm grip on Israel, the Trump administration finds itself with significantly less leverage over Hamas. This is the central paradox of the current moment. Hamas, though militarily inferior and battered by a prolonged conflict, operates from a position of ideological and political independence that the Israeli government does not enjoy. Hamas is not dependent on American military aid, diplomatic cover, or strategic partnership. Its survival calculus is different, rooted in resistance ideology and support from regional patrons like Iran.
Since January 2025, as the article notes, Hamas has consistently stood up to Trump’s threats, refusing to release hostages without extracting major concessions from Israel. Having now gained significant political advantage from the ceasefire itself—legitimacy, a pause in the fighting, and a seat at the table with global powers—the group is likely to act more assertively, not less. The core demand of disarmament is one it will resist with all its might, as it strikes at the very heart of its identity. The pressure on Hamas has been applied indirectly, through its sponsors. Qatar and Turkey, both seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration and position themselves for a role in Gaza’s lucrative post-war reconstruction, were the primary actors who “coerced Hamas into the deal.” However, this is a tenuous chain of command. The critical question for the coming weeks is how long Hamas will feel obliged to Doha and Ankara once their immediate tactical goals are met. The moment Hamas perceives that the costs of defiance are lower than the costs of compliance, the entire deal could rapidly unravel.
The Unraveling of the “Dealmaker” and the Long-Term Consequences
The emerging scenario presents a critical test for the “Trump Doctrine” of foreign policy, which is rooted in public threats, transactional bargaining, and a performance of overwhelming strength. While this style may yield short-term gains and create the optics of control—as seen with Israel—it is often ill-suited for resolving deep-seated, intractable conflicts. Professor Jangid aptly describes the outcome as “a curious paradox”: Trump seems in control of Israel but far less so of Hamas. The Israeli government, for all its military might, is politically cornered, while Hamas, despite its military weakness, retains significant ideological and tactical freedom.
This asymmetry cannot be resolved by American command alone. Trump’s deal diplomacy may succeed in imposing a temporary pause in the violence, a “pause, but not peace.” The methods of threats and transactionalism are, as the article warns, “bleeding long-term resentment in the region.” Every public demonstration of Israeli submission to American dictates is a propaganda victory for Hamas and its backers, who can frame the conflict as one of national resistance against a Zionist entity controlled by a foreign power.
Ultimately, sustainable stability in Gaza will demand elements that are fundamentally at odds with Trump’s world view: restraint, a genuine process of reconciliation that addresses core grievances, and most importantly, regional ownership of the peace process. The plan for an “International Stabilization Force for Gaza,” which would take over control from the Israeli army, is a step in this direction, but its long-term success depends on buy-in from all parties, including Hamas and the broader Palestinian political spectrum.
For all the spectacle of the “deal,” the foundations upon which it is built are shallow. The power imbalance between a state and a non-state actor, the divergent interests of regional patrons, and the deep wells of historical grievance create a reality far more complex than a transactional agreement can manage. President Trump may relish his image as the ultimate dealmaker, but the situation in Gaza is poised to demonstrate a harsh truth: in the Middle East, the most artfully constructed deals often begin to unravel the moment the television cameras are turned off, leaving behind the same old tensions, now fueled by a fresh layer of resentment and mistrust.
Q&A: Unpacking the Gaza Ceasefire and Geopolitical Dynamics
1. What is the main immediate obstacle to the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal, and why is it significant?
The primary immediate obstacle is Hamas’s failure to return the bodies of approximately 13 Israeli captives from the October 7, 2023, attacks, as stipulated in the agreement. This is significant for two reasons. First, it is a deeply emotional and symbolic issue for Israel, where the repatriation of the dead is a sacred national imperative. Second, and more strategically, it is widely seen as a stalling tactic by Hamas. The ceasefire is structured in phases, and the return of the bodies is a prerequisite for the subsequent phase, which would require Hamas to begin disarming. By delaying this step, Hamas postpones the moment where it must confront the demand to surrender its weapons, which constitutes the agreement’s ultimate and most challenging test.
2. How is the Trump administration exerting unprecedented control over Israel, according to the analysis?
The control is exerted through a combination of military and political pressure. Militarily, the deployment of 200 U.S. personnel and the operation of American surveillance drones over Gaza represent a direct, hands-on involvement that had been absent in the preceding two years of the war. This signals a lack of trust in Israel’s own monitoring and a desire to independently manage the process. Politically, the simultaneous visit of top administration officials—the Secretary of State, the Middle East envoy, the Vice President, and the President’s son-in-law—to Jerusalem was a powerful public demonstration of American authority. This was coupled with substantive policy demands, such as the “20-Point Gaza Plan” and the explicit threat to withdraw all U.S. support if Israel annexes the West Bank, which directly counter the agenda of Israel’s right-wing governing coalition.
3. Despite its military weakness, why does Hamas have more freedom to resist American pressure than Israel does?
Hamas’s leverage stems from its different dependencies and operational paradigm. Israel, despite its military superiority, is deeply reliant on the United States for diplomatic cover at the UN, advanced weaponry, and financial aid. This creates a client-patron relationship that Washington can exploit. Hamas, as a non-state actor designated as a terrorist organization by many, has no such dependency on the U.S. Its survival and power are derived from its ideological stance of resistance, its decentralized structure within Gaza, and its support from regional patrons like Iran and Qatar. It does not rely on American goodwill for its existence, making it less susceptible to direct American threats. Its power is bargaining power—holding hostages, threatening violence—not conventional state power.
4. What is the “curious paradox” at the heart of the current situation?
The paradox is that the Trump administration appears to be in firm control of its powerful, militarily superior ally, Israel, but has far less control over the weaker, non-state actor, Hamas. This inverts traditional power logic. Israel is politically cornered and forced to follow a Washington-dictated script to retain its strategic American cover. In contrast, Hamas, though militarily battered, is ideologically freer and less dependent on the U.S., allowing it to resist American demands and act more assertively once it has gained political advantage from a ceasefire.
5. What are the long-term risks of Trump’s “muscular diplomacy” in the region?
The long-term risks are threefold. First, it fosters deep-seated resentment. A peace process perceived as being imposed through threats and transactions, rather than built on mutual reconciliation, sows the seeds for future conflict. Second, it undermines the sovereignty of allies. The public spectacle of Israel being strong-armed by the U.S. creates a vulnerability that adversaries like Iran and Hamas can exploit for propaganda, portraying Israel as a colonial outpost rather than an independent nation. Finally, it offers only a superficial solution. This style of diplomacy may manufacture a temporary “pause” for a political win, but it fails to address the root causes of the conflict—Palestinian aspirations for statehood, Israeli security concerns, and issues of justice and refugees—meaning any calm is likely to be transient.
