Trump’s Bold Stance on Hamas Hostages Reflects America’s Long-Awaited Outrage
For the sake of self-preservation, both Iran and Hamas should be keeping a close eye on the communications from President-elect Donald Trump these days.
A couple of weeks ago, he made a post on Truth Social threatening “ALL HELL TO PAY” if Hamas fails to release its hostages by the time of his inauguration on January 20.
Trump asserted, “Those responsible will face consequences greater than anything experienced in the long and historic timeline of the United States of America.”
He reiterated this during a press conference on Monday.
When queried about his previous threat, he left his intentions ominously ambiguous. “Well,” he stated, pointing to our adversaries, “they’ll have to figure out what that means, but it won’t be pleasant. It’s not going to be pleasant.”
What does this entail? Is Trump hinting at something specific, or is he improvising?
Is he simply bluffing? Or is he completely serious?
Although a formal Trump Doctrine has yet to emerge, one might be: Discover if I’m serious at your own peril.
It is noteworthy that Trump’s threat marks the first occasion that a member of the U.S. government — or an incoming official — has expressed fitting outrage and severity regarding an active crime against American citizens.
Trump’s assertion of “hell to pay” harkens back to leaders like Andrew Jackson or Teddy Roosevelt, who made it clear that we are not to be trifled with, and did so with a commanding tone.
It’s astounding how muted the Biden administration has been concerning the hostages.
While Trump channels righteous indignation with thunderous fervor, the Biden administration has articulated its stance with the clarity one might expect from a deputy secretary of state summarizing a three-hour committee meeting.
This style of public negotiation is inherently natural for Trump.
His approach isn’t tied to a specific foreign-policy theory. It’s neither realist nor neo-conservative nor isolationist. It’s less about Clausewitz’s “On War” or Thomas Schelling’s “The Strategy of Conflict,” and more about Trump’s own “Art of the Deal.”
The well-known adage is that the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton; in a similar vein, every successful negotiation by Trump as president has been rooted in the realities of Manhattan real estate, where he initially honed his unique strategies for gaining leverage and psychological edges.
His readiness to escalate and follow through means that no threat can be completely dismissed, while his unpredictability complicates life for any foreign actor attempting to anticipate his next move.
To the famous Machiavellian saying, “It’s better to be feared than to be loved,” Trump adds, “and it’s ideal to keep them guessing, regardless.”
This stands in stark contrast to Joe Biden, who consistently fears escalation and adheres to a predictable, conventional style that borders on dullness.
Trump embodies what poker players call a “loose aggressive player,” while Biden’s demeanor resembles a carefully measured game of bridge over tea and crumpets.
Though the president-elect is not fond of foreign conflicts, he decimated ISIS as he promised during the 2016 election and eliminated the top Iranian intelligence officer, Qasem Soleimani, without hesitation in 2020.
The safest presumption is to take him at his word, even if you only — in Trump’s own characterization of a threat he claimed he made to Vladimir Putin during his first term — believe him “10%.”
As Trump’s arrival looms, there exists a possibility that Hamas will negotiate a resolution regarding the hostages in the coming weeks, reminiscent of how Iran released captives from the U.S. embassy in 1980 just as Ronald Reagan was entering office.
Regardless of the outcome, we are stepping back into an era where U.S. adversaries need to be cautious and apprehensive, uncertain of how far they can push us or what consequences they may face if they do.
And that’s precisely where Trump desires them to be.
Twitter: @RichLowry
