By Nick Ravenshade for NENC Media Group
October 5, 2025
President Donald Trump on Sunday issued one of his bluntest warnings yet to Hamas — saying the militant group would face “complete obliteration” if it insisted on remaining in power in Gaza — as envoys from Israel, the United States, Egypt and other mediators prepared to resume indirect negotiations in Cairo aimed at securing a hostage release and a ceasefire. The remark, relayed to CNN anchor Jake Tapper and widely reported by news organizations, landed on a tense day of diplomacy that appeared to inch the warring parties toward a fragile agreement even as deadly strikes continued on the ground.
Trump’s comment is the latest public thrust from a U.S. administration that has spent the past week pushing a 20-point proposal for Gaza that conditions a phased Israeli withdrawal and reconstruction funding on Hamas’s disarmament and a transfer of governance to a technocratic body. The White House says the plan would secure the immediate release of the remaining hostages and then create an interim, international-backed administration for Gaza — but the proposal’s demand that Hamas relinquish power has been the talk of the diplomatic round. It is that clause that, according to the U.S. president, would trigger dire consequences if rejected.
What Trump said, and where the remark came from
The comment — “complete obliteration” — was described by journalists and reported in multiple outlets as a direct reply to a question about what would happen if Hamas refused to cede control of Gaza under the proposed deal. CNN’s Jake Tapper — who posed the question — later related the exchange, and numerous international outlets carried the line in live coverage of the unfolding negotiations. White House officials framed the language as part of a pressure campaign aimed at forcing a swift, verifiable handover of power and the release of hostages.
The timing of the comment matters. Delegations were preparing to convene in Cairo on Monday for technical discussions on hostages, withdrawal lines and disarmament mechanisms after Hamas signalled limited acceptance of several elements of the U.S. plan over the weekend. Washington and its partners are racing to translate that partial acceptance into a concrete, verifiable cessation of hostilities — a process that diplomats say will require painstaking detail to prevent a collapse of the fragile arrangement. Trump’s rhetoric, therefore, arrived as both a bargaining chip and a test of whether public pressure can prod parties toward compliance.
International reaction and the diplomatic tightrope
Reactions were immediate and mixed. U.S. officials close to the negotiations framed Trump’s words as a blunt warning designed to stiffen Hamas’s resolve to accept the plan; allies in the region emphasized that any transition in Gaza must be accompanied by practical security, humanitarian and governance arrangements. European and Middle Eastern governments cautiously welcomed the prospect of a deal but warned that threats of annihilation would complicate any political settlement and could inflame public opinion across the Arab world.
On the ground, the situation remained grim. Despite Washington’s push for an immediate pause to facilitate hostage releases and aid deliveries, Israeli strikes continued in Gaza on Sunday, producing additional civilian casualties and raising the stakes for negotiators racing against time to prevent humanitarian collapse. The Palestinian health authorities’ casualty counts — routinely cited by international reporting on the conflict — remained a focal part of international appeals for access and protection of civilians.
The calculus for regional powers is complicated. Egypt and Qatar, the principal intermediaries with Hamas, have pushed for guarantees that any transition would avoid a vacuum that could invite extremist competition. Israel insists on irreversible disarmament. Iran — which backs Hamas and other militant groups in the region — has warned repeatedly that heavy-handed attempts to dismantle Hamas by force would risk a wider confrontation. Analysts warned that incendiary rhetoric, even aimed at pressuring Hamas, can increase the chances of miscalculation and escalation.
Legal, moral and strategic implications
The phrase “complete obliteration” carries heavy moral and legal freight. Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict are bound to distinguish between combatants and civilians and to take precautions to avoid disproportionate harm to non-combatants. A U.S. president’s statement implying total destruction of a governing entity that exercises de facto control over a densely populated civilian territory raises questions among human-rights groups and legal scholars about intent, proportionality and the mechanisms that would be used to achieve such an outcome. Many legal experts caution that rhetoric about annihilation complicates the already fraught task of ensuring civilian protection and could be used by adversaries to rally support.
Strategically, the language underscores a central tension in Washington’s approach: how to meld the short-term goal of securing hostage releases and a ceasefire with the long-term objective of preventing the reconstitution of an armed Hamas apparatus — all while avoiding a new cycle of violence. The U.S. and Israel say they want a durable outcome that secures civilians and denies militant capabilities; critics say that a durable solution requires serious political investment in governance, reconstruction, and regional diplomacy — work that cannot be achieved solely through military means.
How negotiators are trying to lock down an exit ramp
Diplomats plan a phased approach in Egypt: an initial, verifiable hostage release and a temporary withdrawal of Israeli forces to set terms for delivering humanitarian aid, followed by a second phase envisioning an internationally supervised transition to a non-Hamas administration in Gaza. That architecture is meant to reassure Israel about security while providing a pathway for reconstruction and political normalization — but it hinges on ironclad verification mechanisms and the willingness of regional actors to provide security guarantees. The coming technical talks in Cairo will focus on those verification details: who monitors disarmament, how hostages are returned safely, the sequencing of troop movements, and how an interim administration is constituted and protected.
For negotiators, Trump’s rhetoric is a double-edged sword: it may sharpen Hamas’s choice between acceptance and rejection, but it may also harden resistance among constituencies that view international pressure as coercive. The pragmatic challenge for diplomats will be to translate fear of force into a negotiated exit that leaves civilians alive and institutions in place that can govern the Strip without militant rule.
What comes next — and why it matters
In the short term, attention will fall on the Cairo sessions: whether Hamas follows through on releasing hostages and whether Israel pauses strikes as promised during the exchange. If the initial phase succeeds, it could inaugurate a rare political opening after nearly two years of grinding war. If it fails, the risk of renewed large-scale operations and wider regional escalation would climb, especially if Tehran or allied militias perceive an attempt to forcibly remove their proxy from the Gaza theater. In that scenario — the one Trump’s words implicitly warned about — the region could face a dangerous new chapter.
For now, Washington’s message is stark and unmistakable: accept the negotiated pathway or face severe consequences. Whether that calculus will produce compliance, resistance, or further instability depends on a raft of actors — Hamas’s internal politics, Israel’s military judgments, Egypt and Qatar’s leverage, and how regional powers react. Diplomats and humanitarian agencies say the clock is short; the world will be watching Cairo to see whether threats of “obliteration” force a political settlement or merely amplify the human cost.
— Reporting by Nick Ravenshade. Sources: Reuters; Associated Press; The Guardian; Times of Israel; Jerusalem Post.
Photo: The White House, Public Domain, via Wikimedia Commons
Comments ()