In the news
On 7 January, US President-elect Donald J Trump warned Hamas that “all hell would break out in the Middle East” if the group did not release hostages by his inauguration day on 20 January. Refusing to specify what he meant by hell breaking out, he insisted that the scenario would “not be good for Hamas.” 

During the same meeting, Trump’s designated envoy to The Middle East, Steve Witkoff, expressed optimism about the ongoing hostage-deal-ceasefire negotiations in Doha, highlighting that Trump’s stature and the red lines were guiding the talks. 

Issues at large
First, the US approach towards the War in Gaza and the recent Middle East tensions. Since 7 October 2023, the Biden administration has pursued two goals in the Middle East- bolstering Israel’s security against Iran-backed armed groups and preventing further US entanglement in the region. Following the 7 October Hamas attack, the US gave Israel its full support, aligning with Netanyahu’s goals of dismantling Hamas, installing a non-Hamas government in Gaza, and reviving normalisation efforts with Saudi Arabia. However, the Biden administration tried to restrain Israel from expanding the war across the region. Until now, Biden advised Netanyahu against launching a pre-emptive war against Hezbollah on 11 October 2023 and pressured Israel to keep its responses to Iran’s missile volleys proportionate, even threatening to withdraw assistance if Israel did not comply. Biden also opposed Israel’s plans to reoccupy Gaza after the war, as evidenced by his July 2023 ceasefire proposal, which envisioned gradual Israeli withdrawal from the enclave.

Second, Trump’s threats. His approach towards foreign policy so far has been characterised by outlandish statements — annexing Canada, purchasing Greenland, reintegrating the Panama Canal — rather than policy pronouncement, causing his detractors to speculate that “hell to pay” may simply be a pressure tactic against Hamas. Despite his promises to draw down US’ global entanglements, Trump continued Biden’s blank-cheque support for Israel. His recent assertions placed the burden of compliance squarely on Hamas while granting Israel maximum freedom of operation to “finish the job” by the time he assumes office. However, Trump, with his record of recognising Israeli settlements in the West Bank and shifting the US embassy to Jerusalem, is more indifferent to Palestinians’ territorial claims than his predecessor. Most importantly, having quashed JCPOA in his previous term in favour of a “maximum pressure” doctrine, Trump is more amenable to Netanyahu’s plans of a US-assisted escalation against Iran. 
 
In perspective
First, Trump’s recent statements against Hamas are evidence of his predictably unpredictable and rhetoric-driven foreign policy. While his threats do create pressure on Hamas, which stands severely weakened after over a year of Israeli operations, it is difficult to see how Trump could make Israel’s Gaza campaign any more effective. If true, the threat would mean an unprecedented increase in US assistance to Israel. As the US already provides unconditional military assistance to Israel, Washington does not have very many instruments at his disposal. 

Second, at the operational level, Trump could deploy additional aircraft carrier strike groups into the Mediterranean Sea, deploy its special forces on the ground alongside Israeli troops, or provide Israel with greater intelligence and targeting information on remaining Hamas leaders. 

Third, at the strategic level, since Trump has hinted at a regionwide “hell,” he could greenlight Israel’s plans to intensify its direct attacks against Iran, which would be massively escalatory and, if successful, radically alter the region’s balance of power in Israel’s favour. Such operations would include Israeli airstrikes on key Iranian nuclear facilities and decapitation operations against Iran’s civilian and military leadership, including Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC top brass. Trump has sensed Hamas and Iran’s weakened position and is therefore unwilling to offer concessions. Furthermore, with economic unrest and anti-regime sentiment brewing in Iran, such a move could shift power away from Ayatollah Khamenei, creating possibilities for a future US-Israeli-backed regime change in Iran. Taking advantage of Iran’s recent strategic setbacks could strengthen Israel but also cause Tehran to accelerate its nuclear programme, which is already at a point of no return.