The declaration of an ultimatum by the U.S. president—delivered in front of military commanders—goes far beyond a mere diplomatic lever. Implicitly, it provides both “political authorization” and a “legal-media shield” for potential escalation of Israeli attacks. When the leader of a global superpower declares, in the language of threat, that “I give permission for anything,” in practice it legitimizes any course of action Israel may take. Such statements can send a green light to pro-Israel governments while simultaneously justifying coalition-building against Gaza.

A Dual Tool: Rebranded Diplomacy and Military Pressure

The simultaneous use of a “peace proposal” alongside a binding ultimatum reveals a two-faced strategy: on the one hand, a symbolic invocation of peace, and on the other, a threat of force should the offer be rejected. From a strategic standpoint, this approach pursues three objectives:

Creating doubt and disarray within Hamas and its regional allies;

Projecting an image of “finality” to U.S. domestic opinion and foreign partners;

Providing justification for military moves or even direct U.S. participation.

Ultimately, this is “diplomacy with a trigger”: peace-sounding claims for deflection, and threats for the fulfillment of military goals.

Regional Extortion and Securing Political Gains

The combination of military-logistical mobilization with political rhetoric reflects a drive for “extortion”—psychological and practical pressure designed to push regional actors into compliance or silence. Generating military fear across the region could compel Arab states to accept, or at least acquiesce to, imposed solutions—whose ultimate aim may be deeper normalization of ties with Israel or securing certain U.S. and Israeli security objectives. Though presented as an “inevitable reality,” in practice this mechanism would strip Gazans of their rights and interests.

Risk of Direct U.S. Entry and Long-Term Fallout

The ultimatum, announced in a military setting and coupled with U.S. field deployments, raises the likelihood of a direct military option. If the Israeli army proves ineffective or in need of overt backing, Washington may step in under the pretext of “implementing a peace plan.” Such a move would bring sweeping consequences: a higher civilian death toll, worsening of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, wider regional instability, and potential retaliatory strikes against U.S. interests. Strategically, direct American involvement would erode Washington’s credibility in the eyes of both regional and international opinion, fueling resentment and radicalization.

In sum, Trump’s ultimatum is less a path to peace than an asymmetric instrument—anchored in military threats and diplomatic coercion—meant to enforce one-sided demands. The dual game of “peace offers without guarantees” and “open military threats” risks paving the way for broader bloodshed and deeper U.S. entanglement in war. Regional and international actors must recognize that Hamas’s acceptance or rejection of such terms can scarcely serve as a measure of genuine peace. A sustainable solution is only possible through international guarantees, an end to military operations, and the reopening of political and humanitarian channels.