Pressure works. In 2018, President Donald Trump sanctioned Turkey, a NATO member, to free Pastor Andrew Brunson, an American citizen that President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan held hostage. Turkey’s currency plummeted and Erdoğan released Brunson without concessions. With Trump returning to office and American hostages in Hamas captivity, a similar campaign looms.
Trump vows that there will be “hell to pay” if Hamas fails to release American hostages. That pledge requires confronting the entire ecosystem funding and replenishing Hamas from abroad.
Hamas operates under the shadow of Israel’s military oversight in Gaza and the West Bank. Yet despite the blockade, weapons and funds slip in. Is it truly enough to barricade a strip of coastline and the Jordanian border when the real arteries lie elsewhere? Consider Qatar, Turkey, Algeria, Malaysia, Iran, Lebanon—capitals and home to banks where deals keep Hamas on life support. These channels remain the crux of the problem. Turkey caved under economic pressure during the Brunson affair. Would the outcome differ if Trump applied the same tactic on enablers in Qatar and Malaysia?
Historically, the United States has used financial warfare to protect citizens abroad. The United States froze Iranian assets after 1979 and, more recently, designated abusers under the Global Magnitsky Act. The common thread is credible, concentrated pressure on individuals who have the power to change government policy.
The Trump administration should simply say: “Cut ties with Hamas or your banks lose access to U.S. markets.”
Hamas is no different from other hostage-takers. It depends on foreign cheerleaders and funders who view the kidnapping of Americans as a distant problem. The Trump administration should simply say: “Cut ties with Hamas or your banks lose access to U.S. markets.” The response of Hamas enablers likely would mirror Turkey’s swift about-face. Well-heeled officials do not relish the prospect of personal asset freezes, nor do aviation moguls want their planes banned from American runways.
Critics warn economic warfare could fray alliances, yet Brunson’s release suggests otherwise. Turkey remains part of NATO, and commerce continues to flow. No armies deployed, and no treaties shattered. Like any ultimatum, the policy demanded compliance: Free an unjustly detained American or watch your economy wither. It worked then. Why not now?
For Gaza, targeted strikes on key Hamas lieutenants still might be necessary. Smuggling routes—especially from Jordan into the West Bank—demand vigilance. Cyber-sabotage to disrupt Hamas communications has merit, too. But these steps must coincide with a global crackdown on the channels fueling Hamas’s hostage-taking habit. Banks in Kuala Lumpur or Istanbul, cargo lines in Algiers, and foreign ministries in Doha, Tunis, and Jakarta all should face a choice: sever Hamas’s financial veins or risk economic implosion.
There is precedent. The United States historically has wielded sanctions to protect citizens and quell threats before they spiral into conflict. From the Jackson-Vanik amendment during the Cold War to the recent spate of Treasury designations targeting terror financiers, Washington has shown it can isolate any regime or group if it has resolve.
By aiming pressure at [Hamas’s] external backers, the United States makes life difficult for the financiers, not the ordinary Gazan who seeks peace.
Washington first must identify every hawala network, bank account, and “charitable” front that aids Hamas. Next, it must slam those responsible with personal bans and asset freezes. If host governments balk, warn them that trade deals and foreign aid rest on their willingness to starve Hamas of resources. Finally, couple these sanctions with a limited, precise interdiction strategy—naval, aerial, or cyber—to remind Hamas that no border crossing is safe enough to hide its ill-gotten gains.
By aiming pressure at external backers, the United States makes life difficult for the financiers, not the ordinary Gazan who seeks peace. And if any government wants to avoid this storm, it can choose to stop fueling Hamas and cut ties that perpetuate hostage-taking.
Trump’s vow of “hell to pay” will mean little if it’s mere theatrics. The Brunson case showed that swift and personal sanctions can push even powerful leaders to blink. History confirms that America, when resolute, can bring governments to their knees without firing a shot. The only question is whether this administration is ready to go all in once again. Will it treat Hamas’s network with the same vigor shown to Turkey over one imprisoned pastor?
Time will tell. Until then, the path forward stands clear. Zero tolerance for hostage-taking. Zero patience for those who bankroll it. Zero latitude for governments that shrug off American lives as collateral. Such resolve has a track record of saving lives. And when it comes to citizens held at gunpoint, saving lives should be the only acceptable outcome.
