The Trump Doctrine in Gaza, An Unprecedented U.S. Grip on Israel and the Illusion of Control

The Trump Doctrine in Gaza, An Unprecedented U.S. Grip on Israel and the Illusion of Control

In the complex and volatile theater of the Israel-Hamas conflict, a new and paradoxical power dynamic has emerged, reshaping the traditional alliances and strategies that have defined the region for decades. The ongoing ceasefire, a fragile construct born from immense international pressure, is currently facing its most critical test. The issue at hand is not merely a violation of hostilities, but the gruesome and symbolic matter of the remains of 13 Israeli captives from the October 7, 2023 attacks, which Hamas has yet to return as stipulated in the agreement. This delay, whether born of logistical disarray or tactical stalling, points to a deeper truth: while the United States under President Donald Trump has achieved an unprecedented level of direct control over its ally Israel, its leverage over the militant group Hamas remains tenuous and incomplete. This asymmetry of influence is creating a precarious and potentially unsustainable peace, one where the most powerful military in the region is being reined in by its patron, while the weakest armed faction retains significant ideological and tactical autonomy.

The current situation represents a dramatic departure from the historical U.S.-Israel relationship. Traditionally, Washington provided diplomatic cover and military aid while granting Israel considerable operational latitude, particularly regarding its security. The Trump administration has shattered this precedent. The deployment of approximately 200 U.S. military personnel to Israel for monitoring and coordination is not just a supportive gesture; it is a statement of direct oversight. The use of American drones to surveil Gaza establishes a layer of U.S. intelligence-gathering that bypasses Israeli channels, signaling a profound distrust of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government and its military assessments. This is a level of hands-on management not seen in the two years since the war began, transforming the U.S. from a supportive ally into a supervisory power.

The Squeeze on Netanyahu: Sovereignty Versus Strategic Cover

The political pressure on the Israeli government became unmistakably visible recently with the simultaneous presence in Jerusalem of the top echelons of the Trump administration: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, the President’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Vice President J.D. Vance. This was not a diplomatic visit; it was a demonstration of raw political force. The message to Netanyahu and his war cabinet was unequivocal: “We are calling the shots here.” This very public display of American muscle-flexing created immediate domestic troubles for the Israeli Prime Minister. Caught between an assertive Washington and a restive domestic populace, Netanyahu was forced to perform a delicate balancing act—reassuring the Israeli public that their nation remained a sovereign state and not an American “client state,” while simultaneously acquiescing to Washington’s demands to retain the indispensable strategic and diplomatic cover only the U.S. can provide.

The core of this pressure is Trump’s “20-Point Gaza Plan,” the details of which are likely unpalatable to the hardliners in Netanyahu’s coalition. It almost certainly includes elements they would normally reject, such as a firm timeline for a permanent ceasefire, limitations on Israeli military operations in Gaza, and a pathway toward a new governance structure for the strip that excludes both Hamas and unfettered Israeli control. Yet, under the explicit threat of losing American support, the Israeli government finds itself with little room to maneuver. A further blow to the Israeli right was Trump’s stark warning that “Israel will lose all the support from the U.S. if it annexes the West Bank,” a statement that directly curtails the ambitions of the powerful settler movement and demonstrates a U.S. willingness to dictate red lines on core issues of Israeli territorial expansion.

The Hamas Conundrum: Ideological Freedom and the Limits of Coercion

In stark contrast to this command over Israel, the Trump administration’s leverage over Hamas is significantly weaker. Hamas operates from a fundamentally different position. As a non-state actor driven by a resilient Islamist ideology and sustained by a network of regional sponsors, it is less susceptible to the traditional tools of statecraft and economic pressure that Washington wields so effectively against allied governments. Hamas has demonstrated its capacity to withstand American threats since January 2025, refusing to release hostages without extracting major concessions from Israel, such as the release of Palestinian prisoners and a withdrawal of Israeli forces from key areas.

Now, having secured these political advantages and survived a devastating military confrontation, Hamas is positioned to act more assertively. Its primary objective is to resist the next phase of the ceasefire: disarmament. For Hamas, its arsenal is not merely a tool of war but a fundamental pillar of its identity and political relevance. To lay down its weapons would be to surrender its raison d’être and capitulate to the very forces it has vowed to resist.

The primary channel of U.S. influence over Hamas runs indirectly through regional intermediaries, namely Qatar and Turkey. Both nations, seeking to curry favor with the Trump administration and secure a influential role in the lucrative reconstruction of Gaza, have coerced Hamas into the current deal. However, this leverage is transactional and fragile. The critical, unanswered question is how long Hamas will feel obliged to these regional patrons once their immediate objectives are met. Their compliance is a strategic calculation, not a reflection of shared goals with Washington.

The Paradox of Power and Its Consequences

This dynamic creates a curious and dangerous paradox: the world’s sole superpower exerts formidable control over the region’s strongest military, but remains relatively powerless against its weakest organized armed faction. The Israeli government, for all its military superiority, is politically cornered, forced to follow a Washington-dictated script to preserve its strategic relationship. Hamas, though militarily weaker, is ideologically freer and less dependent on the U.S.-led international order, granting it a surprising degree of agency.

This imbalance has profound implications. Trump’s brand of muscular diplomacy, rooted in threats and transactional deals, may succeed in imposing a temporary calm. However, it risks breeding long-term resentment. In Israel, the humiliation of being publicly reined in by its chief ally could fuel a nationalist backlash, strengthening the very hardliners Trump seeks to marginalize. In the wider Arab world, the optics of an American president dictating terms to a subordinate Israel may be initially welcomed, but the underlying reality of U.S. hegemony will not be forgotten.

For Prime Minister Netanyahu, this moment is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it is deeply humiliating, exposing the limits of Israeli sovereignty and his own political autonomy. On the other, it is politically useful. It allows him to outsource the burden of achieving peace to the Americans, thereby deflecting domestic anger over the war’s costly failures and the intelligence lapses of October 7. He can present any unpalatable concessions as being forced upon him by an unstoppable external power, shielding himself from direct blame.

The Road Ahead: A Pause, But Not Peace

The planned International Stabilization Force for Gaza, intended to take over control from the Israeli army, is the next logical step in this U.S.-driven process. Yet, its success is entirely contingent on a factor Trump has little control over: Hamas’s willingness to disarm and transition from a militant group to a purely political entity. The current stalling over the return of the bodies is a likely preview of the resistance to come on the far more consequential issue of weapons.

Ultimately, Trump’s deal-making diplomacy may succeed in imposing a pause in the fighting, but it is ill-suited to forging a genuine and lasting peace. The fundamental asymmetry of power and objectives between Israel and Hamas cannot be resolved by American command alone. Sustainable stability in Gaza will require elements that are anathema to Trump’s transactional worldview: genuine restraint, a painful process of reconciliation, and, most importantly, regional ownership of the peace process that includes actors who have a lasting stake in the outcome.

While President Trump may relish the image of the master dealmaker imposing his will on a stubborn conflict, the realities of the Middle East are poised to deliver a harsh lesson. The cameras may eventually leave, the diplomats may declare victory, but the underlying tensions, grievances, and power struggles will remain, waiting to unravel even the most artfully constructed “deal.”

Q&A: Deconstructing the New U.S.-Israel-Hamas Dynamic

Q1: How exactly is the U.S. under Trump exerting more control over Israel than in previous administrations?

A: The control is being exerted through a combination of unprecedented military, diplomatic, and political pressure:

• Direct Military Oversight: The deployment of 200 U.S. personnel and the use of American drones for surveillance in Gaza creates a layer of independent U.S. monitoring, reducing Israel’s operational autonomy and signaling a lack of trust in Israeli military decision-making.

• Diplomatic “Shock and Awe”: The coordinated visit of top-level officials (Rubio, Vance, Kushner) was a public demonstration of American authority designed to corner Netanyahu and show the Israeli public who is ultimately in charge.

• Policy Dictates: Trump’s “20-Point Gaza Plan” and his explicit threat to cut off support if Israel annexes the West Bank are direct interventions in core Israeli security and sovereignty issues, going beyond traditional advice into the realm of command.

Q2: Why does Hamas have more freedom to resist U.S. pressure than Israel does?

A: Hamas’s freedom stems from its fundamental nature as a non-state actor:

• Different Leverage Points: The U.S. can pressure Israel by threatening to withdraw billions in annual military aid, diplomatic support at the UN, and intelligence sharing. Hamas, which doesn’t receive U.S. aid and is already designated a terrorist organization, is immune to these specific tools.

• Ideological Resilience: Hamas’s power is derived from its Islamist ideology and its portrayal as a “resistance” movement. Concessions made under pure coercion can be framed as betrayal by its base and rivals, unlike a state government which can justify actions through realpolitik.

• Regional Patronage: Hamas survives on support from Iran, Qatar, and Turkey. As long as these regional powers have interests that diverge from U.S. goals, Hamas has alternative sources of support and does not rely on Washington for its survival.

Q3: What is the strategic calculation for Qatar and Turkey in pressuring Hamas?

A: For Qatar and Turkey, their mediation is a high-stakes game to enhance their regional influence.

• Currying Favor with Washington: Both nations seek to position themselves as indispensable partners to the Trump administration, hoping for favorable treatment on other issues, from trade to security cooperation.

• Influence in Post-War Gaza: The reconstruction of Gaza will involve billions of dollars in contracts and long-term political influence. By being the key arbiters with Hamas, Qatar and Turkey are positioning themselves to be the primary external players in Gaza’s future, potentially at the expense of rivals like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.

• Domestic and Ideological Posturing: For Turkey’s Erdogan, supporting the Palestinian cause bolsters his image as a leader of the Muslim world. For Qatar, it reinforces its role as a mediator capable of talking to all sides.

Q4: How is Netanyahu using this U.S. pressure to his domestic political advantage?

A: Paradoxically, while being humiliated, Netanyahu is using the situation to his benefit:

• Deflecting Blame: He can tell his hardline coalition partners that his hands are tied by the Americans, allowing him to make concessions for a ceasefire that would otherwise be politically suicidal.

• Managing Public Anger: After the failures of October 7 and a prolonged, costly war with no clear victory, Netanyahu can outsource the difficult task of ending the war to Trump. If the ceasefire brings hostages home and ends the fighting, he can claim credit. If it fails, he can blame U.S. pressure for tying Israel’s hands.

• Political Survival: By aligning himself closely with the U.S. plan, he ensures the continued flow of American support, which is vital for his government’s stability and Israel’s long-term security, even if it comes at the cost of short-term sovereignty.

Q5: Why is the return of the bodies of the 13 captives such a critical sticking point?

A: The issue of the bodies is both a practical and profoundly symbolic hurdle:

• A Test of Good Faith: Hamas’s inability or unwillingness to locate and return the bodies is seen by Israel as a fundamental breach of the ceasefire agreement, eroding the minimal trust required for the process to continue.

• A Stalling Tactic: For Hamas, delaying the return of the bodies is a way to prolong the current phase of the ceasefire and delay the much more dangerous (for them) next phase: disarmament.

• An Emotional Imperative for Israel: In Israeli society and Jewish law, the recovery and proper burial of the dead is a sacred duty. The continued holding of bodies by Hamas is a source of immense national anguish and a political pressure point that Netanyahu cannot ignore, making it a powerful bargaining chip for Hamas.