Is Trump Overly Confident in Hamas’s Ability to Deliver?

Israelis and Jews worldwide were united in heartrending emotion this week as we watched the remaining Israeli hostages make their way to freedom after two years of unimaginable captivity.

Their release, along with the partial return of several bodies of slain captives, brought a collective sigh of relief in Israel and produced a moment of triumph for Washington. President Trump was quick to claim credit, proclaiming triumphantly,  “the war is over.”

As Trump landed in Israel to a hero’s welcome, he spoke of a “new beginning” and “a region ready for peace.” From Israel he flew to Sharm El-Sheik for a summit with European, Arab and Muslim leaders, stating: “We have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to put the old feuds and bitter hatreds behind us.”  He urged leaders “to declare that our future will not be ruled by the fights of generations past.”

But beneath the ceremony and the headlines lies an uncomfortable question: Is the Trump administration placing too much confidence in Hamas’s ability or willingness to deliver on its promises?

A Fragile Deal Built on Hope

The hostage release was part of an initial stage in the Trump administration’s 20-point plan to end the Gaza war and establish a “post-Hamas” order. The plan assumes Hamas will continue cooperating, releasing all remaining murdered hostages, refraining from attacks, and allowing a transitional authority to govern Gaza under regional supervision.

That’s a heavy dose of faith in an organization that, for decades, has broken ceasefires, violated truces, and used negotiations as a blind to regroup and rearm. The return of living hostages is a blessing, taking a huge burden off Israeli shoulders, but it does not necessarily signal a strategic change in Hamas’s strategy. It signals that Hamas, under immense pressure, made a tactical move that it can just as easily reverse if the conditions change.

The Sharm Summit: Confidence or Overreach?

At the summit, Trump told a packed hall of Arab leaders that “Once all hostages are returned, Hamas members who commit to peaceful co-existence and to decommission their weapons will be given amnesty. Members of Hamas who wish to leave Gaza will be provided safe passage to receiving countries.” The statement drew thinly veiled skepticism from Arab leaders, who, like Israel, know Hamas’s record all too well. Many of them privately doubt whether Hamas can be trusted to uphold any lasting arrangement.

The administration’s calculation seems to be that public confidence can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.  Washington seems to hope that by treating Hamas as a responsible actor, it can coax it into behaving like one. It’s a risky form of diplomacy that works better with small children than with terrorist organizations.

Trust Without Teeth

The 20-point plan’s structure depends on Hamas adhering to sequential steps, from releasing hostages to surrendering weapons and eventually ceding control to a regional council. Yet the plan lacks a method for enforcement. If Hamas stalls, who compels compliance? Who verifies disarmament? If it splinters, who decides which faction represents “Hamas” for the purposes of the agreement?

Ambiguity invites manipulation. Historically we have seen Hamas thrives in gray zones. It exploits ceasefires to resupply and uses humanitarian relief to rebuild its power base.  We are witnessing these actions only days after the ceasefire announcement.   Without explicit verification and credible consequences, the Trump plan risks legitimizing Hamas while weakening Israel’s deterrence.

A Movement Divided and Unbound

One of the administration’s core miscalculations may be structural. Hamas is not a single disciplined body; it’s a fragmented movement with overlapping centers of power.  The political wing in Doha, the military command in Gaza, and decentralized local militias often pursue their own agendas. Hamas’s political leadership negotiated the deal, but its enforcement depends on commanders who answer to no one but themselves.

It is more wishful than realistic to believe a political handshake can bind a fractured insurgency. It reflects an American tendency to assume hierarchical discipline where there is often only fluid allegiance.

Why Trump Is Betting on Confidence

Washington is desperate for a foreign-policy victory. Projecting confidence in Hamas’s “reform” maintains the illusion of momentum. It also aligns with Trump’s signature approach: transactional, improvisational, and anchored in personal belief rather than institutional caution.

Washington is gambling  that words can shape behavior.   Trump is betting that  transactional tendencies will compel Hamas to act in good faith. History, sadly, offers little support for that bet.

If the Bet Fails

Should Hamas backslide. If the return of bodies is withheld. If fighting resumes or Hamas refuses to cede authority, the fallout could be dramatic. Washington would face accusations of gullibility; and regional partners would distance themselves from a deal built on fantasy.

Worse, Hamas could emerge strengthened, validated as an international actor without ever renouncing its charter or disarming. That would be the ultimate irony: a peace process that inadvertently entrenches the very group it sought to disarm.  The consequences for Israel and the region as a whole would be dire.

Confidence Must Be Earned

Trump’s visit to Jerusalem and his summit in Egypt underscored a powerful truth: America still has leverage in the Middle East. But leverage is not the same as control. Confidence, in diplomacy, must be calibrated:  conditional, incremental, and anchored in verification.

Hamas’s promises may serve as a starting point for negotiation, but they cannot be the foundation of peace. The administration’s challenge now is to turn symbolic trust into measurable accountability before the next round of violence reminds everyone just how fragile “hope” can be in this region.