It's fair to assume that President-elect Trump's resonating threat to unleash "all hell" on those responsible for withholding the hostages carries more weight than the famous tale of Hershele of Ostropol, the jester from countless folk stories. The relevant story describes Hershele, penniless and hungry, storming into an inn, pounding the table, and threatening that if he isn't served dinner immediately, he will do what his father did. His menacing demeanor and shouts so terrified the innkeeper that he rushed to serve Hershele for free. Afterward, trembling, the innkeeper asked, "What did your father do?" Hershele replied, "When he had no dinner, he went to bed hungry."
Trump is no Hershele, and if he chooses to act on his threat, it is backed by substance. He does not intend to "go to bed hungry." On the other hand, Hamas has demonstrated resilience under intense military and diplomatic pressure and has shown little flexibility regarding the stringent demands it set at the start of the war for the hostages' release. The question remains: beyond the arrival of a "new guy in the neighborhood," does Trump's toolbox contain levers of pressure that Biden chose not to use?
The answer is yes. Biden, under the threat of an arms embargo, "forced" Israel to transfer fuel and food into Gaza, effectively providing oxygen to Hamas, above and below ground. He deprived Israel of the ability to impose a genuine siege on Gaza—an action that could have shortened the war and accelerated the hostages' release. If Trump is serious, he would need to reverse this policy by 180 degrees.
Biden also refrained from economically targeting Hamas' patrons and financiers in Qatar and Turkey. Qatar, a state aligned with the Muslim Brotherhood and a supporter of Hamas, was appointed as a mediator. Qatar holds sway over Hamas, and the US, in turn, has leverage over Qatar. A mere threat from the US to remove its massive military base from Qatar could lead to real, not just symbolic, movement in the hostage negotiations. Similarly, Trump could threaten a boycott not only on Iran but also on Turkey, which harbors Hamas leaders and operatives. Such a move could pressure Turkish President Erdoğan to act against Hamas. A threat to target Iran's oil fields—given that Hamas is a proxy for Tehran—might compel Iran to push Hamas into releasing the hostages.
Trump's new circle of advisors likely includes individuals who understand what many in Israel have yet to grasp: only a visible and permanent loss of territory in Gaza for every day the hostages remain captive could change Hamas' position. Incremental annexation of Gaza land by Israel in response to Hamas' obstinacy could force the terrorist organization to reconsider its stance.
These are not the only pressure levers available. Trump could also target the aid organizations and charities that funneled funds to Hamas and Gaza during the war.
Trump's rhetoric offers an additional benefit: he unequivocally directs blame toward the real culprit for the hostages' plight. This clarity is not a given, especially when, within Israel, protesters, leakers, and critics are blaming Prime Minister Netanyahu. These voices, far from aiding the hostages, harm their cause and delay their release. Even the Biden administration has acknowledged and declared that Hamas is solely responsible for the lack of a deal.
