President Donald Trump warned Hamas on Monday that “all hell is going to break loose” if all remaining Israeli hostages aren’t released by Saturday at noon.
When asked by reporters what he meant, Trump replied simply, “You’ll find out, and they’ll find out, too. Hamas will find out what I mean.”
The Trump doctrine could well be characterized as “speak in menacing terms and carry a big stick.”
It’s a twist on the original Teddy Roosevelt dictum that stressed soft-spoken diplomacy backed up by lethal capacity, and it’s suited for the times. Enemies and allies alike, according to the Trump doctrine, have long taken advantage of the United States’s lack of clarity and resolve. And the results have been disastrous: trade deals that decimated American manufacturing, military alliances in which the U.S. has borne disproportionate costs, an ascendent China.
And while the Trump Right prefers the Ronald Reagan-era phrase “peace through strength” to define its geopolitical footing, Trump’s delivery style makes his approach meaningfully different.
Reagan’s polished and optimistic speaking style projected a grandfatherly confidence that good would triumph over evil in the end. By contrast, Trump’s use of menacing, Godfather-ly understatement projects a streetwise resourcefulness that seeks to enforce beneficial transactions. Trump isn’t interested in simply creating the conditions for good to triumph over evil — he wants to make evil an offer it can’t refuse.
Justin Logan, director of defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, believes Trump’s unromantic, transactional outlook helps as much as his bluster.
“He isn’t defending some airy idea of the liberal international order, whatever that is,” Logan told the Washington Examiner. “He lets people know he wants results and is willing to play ball with anyone to get them.”
To be sure, Trump’s more directly threatening rhetoric has already yielded fruit in his second term. His open musing about using military force to retake the Panama Canal if necessary appears to have played a direct role in Panama’s decision to not renew its Belt and Road initiative agreement with China. And his tariff threats to Mexico and Canada, the latter of which he threatened with annexation, forced America’s neighbors into negotiations from a position of weakness — though it isn’t clear exactly how much was gained in either case.
But Trump’s eagerness to issue direct threats also comes with hazards. This is especially true in the case of Gaza.
Of course, Trump deserves the lion’s share of credit for producing the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas. Former President Joe Biden’s team may have laid the groundwork for the deal, but Trump’s reemergence on the world stage proved decisive.
His recent threat about breaking loose “all hell,” however, could blow up that deal by giving Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the green light to pull out. In addition, drawing this redline could either draw the U.S. into the conflict or weaken the credibility of Trump’s threats. After all, it wouldn’t be out of character for Hamas to weasel out of its commitments.
Daniel Flesch, senior policy analyst for the Middle East at the Heritage Foundation, thinks the ambiguous nature of Trump’s “all hell” threat provides enough wiggle room in that event.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“He’s showing in a very realistic way all options are on the table,” he told the Washington Examiner. “And the threat of escalation is predicated on the enemy believing your threat. Hamas knows from his last time in office that Trump makes good on his threats, the most prominent example being Trump’s killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani.”
The Trump doctrine of speaking in menacing terms and carrying a big stick faces a big test this weekend. The rest of the world is surely taking note.