Why Hamas Won't Give Up Its Weapons: Inside the U.S. Ultimatum, Iran's Influence, and Gaza's Political Future
- Moataz Khalil
- Jul 2
- 4 min read
By Moataz Khalil
Hamas' refusal to give up its weapons has become the single greatest obstacle to Gaza's postwar future. That reality was thrust into the open this week after a senior American intermediary publicly revealed the blunt message Washington delivered to Hamas: choose your weapons or choose the people of Gaza.
The disclosure shattered months of carefully managed diplomacy and exposed what many regional officials increasingly believe is the central question facing Gaza—not reconstruction, humanitarian aid, or even governance, but whether Hamas will ever agree to surrender its military arsenal.
The controversy has also highlighted a broader geopolitical reality. Hamas' military strategy is no longer simply a Palestinian issue. It is deeply intertwined with Iran's regional agenda, making the group's weapons a central pillar of a much larger strategic confrontation stretching from Gaza to Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, and Tehran.
The central question is no longer whether Gaza can be rebuilt. It is whether Gaza can be rebuilt while Hamas remains an armed militia.
What Was the U.S. Ultimatum to Hamas?
The latest diplomatic storm erupted following a televised interview on Egypt-based, UAE-funded Al-Ghad TV. Speaking with Lebanese journalist Sami Kleib, Dr. Bishara Bahbah—Chairman of the Arab Americans for Peace Council and an adviser to President Donald Trump—revealed the essence of Washington's message to Hamas.
"You must choose," Bahbah said. "Either your weapons or the people of Gaza."The statement stripped away months of diplomatic ambiguity.
International mediators have long attempted to separate humanitarian relief, reconstruction, hostage negotiations, and Gaza's political future from the highly contentious issue of Hamas' military capabilities. Bahbah's remarks publicly linked those issues together, making clear that Washington increasingly sees Hamas' weapons—not reconstruction funding—as the principal obstacle to ending the war.
Hamas' Response Revealed Its Priorities
Palestinian sources told ME24 that Bahbah's public comments sent Hamas' political and media apparatus into crisis mode. For months, Hamas had sought to portray its negotiating positions as driven primarily by concern for Gaza's civilians. The public disclosure threatened that narrative by suggesting the group had been presented with a direct choice between preserving its military infrastructure and accelerating relief for Gaza's population.
Hamas-affiliated media outlets quickly attempted to discredit Bahbah's remarks. However, senior regional officials confirmed to ME24 that the American message had indeed been conveyed through official intelligence channels.
According to those sources, Hamas' response—relayed through Egyptian and UAE intermediaries—made clear that preserving its military wing remained the organization's overriding priority, even if doing so prolonged destruction and delayed reconstruction.
Why Hamas Refuses to Give Up Its Weapons
To outside observers, Hamas' refusal to disarm may appear irrational given Gaza's devastation. Within Hamas' own strategic doctrine, however, surrendering its weapons is viewed as organizational suicide.The movement's leadership believes that once disarmed, its commanders would lose both military deterrence and political relevance, leaving them vulnerable to Israeli operations and unable to maintain control inside Gaza.
This explains the apparent division between Hamas' political bureau and the Al-Qassam Brigades. While political leaders continue negotiating through regional mediators, Hamas' military leadership maintains an uncompromising stance on disarmament. Rather than reflecting internal disagreement, this division allows Hamas to engage diplomatically without abandoning its principal source of leverage.
Can Gaza Be Rebuilt While Hamas Remains Armed?
Every major diplomatic initiative now runs into the same fundamental dilemma. Can Gaza be reconstructed while Hamas continues to operate as an armed non-state actor?
Recent policy documents suggest Washington is increasingly pursuing a phased answer. Rather than waiting indefinitely for Hamas to surrender its weapons, leaked proposals indicate the United States is attempting to establish alternative governing institutions while gradually reducing Hamas' control over Gaza.
The proposed framework includes a Peace Council, an Executive Gaza Council, a technocratic administration, an international stabilization force, and an unarmed Palestinian civil guard. The plan would also authorize major investments in electricity, water infrastructure, healthcare, telecommunications, and reconstruction while creating internationally recognized institutions capable of administering aid independently of Hamas.The strategy reflects growing recognition in Washington that governance reform and disarmament may need to proceed simultaneously rather than sequentially.
How Iran Shapes Hamas' Position
The weapons debate extends far beyond Gaza itself. For Iran, Hamas is not merely a Palestinian movement. It is a critical component of Tehran's regional deterrence network alongside Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iranian-backed militias in Iraq.
Although much of that network has been weakened over the past two years, Hamas remains one of Iran's most important strategic assets on Israel's southern border. Allowing Hamas to disarm would represent more than a tactical setback.
It would significantly weaken decades of Iranian investment in Palestinian armed groups while reducing Tehran's ability to project influence against Israel and the broader Western-backed regional order. This helps explain why Hamas' military calculations increasingly align with Iran's broader geopolitical interests.
The Media Battle Over Hamas' Weapons
Across much of the Arab media landscape, Hamas' arsenal is portrayed very differently than it is in Washington or Jerusalem. Islamist-leaning outlets—including Al Jazeera—frequently frame Hamas' weapons as the last remaining guarantee of Palestinian leverage rather than as the principal obstacle to peace.
Commentators argue that the Palestinian Authority's security coordination with Israel has failed to deliver statehood, leaving armed resistance as the only effective means of influencing future negotiations. Within that narrative, Hamas' refusal to disarm is presented as a strategic necessity rather than evidence of Iranian influence.
Gaza's Political Future Depends on One Question
Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Bahbah's remarks has exposed the central contradiction at the heart of every proposal for postwar Gaza. The primary obstacle is no longer humanitarian assistance or reconstruction funding. It is who will control the monopoly on force inside the Gaza Strip.
Israel, the United States, and an increasing number of Arab governments argue that no stable political order can emerge while Hamas retains an independent military capability. Hamas—and its principal sponsor, Iran—view those same weapons as indispensable to the organization's survival and long-term regional influence.
Until that contradiction is resolved, every diplomatic roadmap, reconstruction plan, and ceasefire proposal will confront the same reality. The future of Gaza will ultimately be determined not by how quickly it can be rebuilt, but by whether Hamas is prepared to surrender the weapons it considers essential to its existence.
Moataz Khalil is an Egyptian, London-based journalist and media researcher on Middle East affairs. He is a senior contributor to MiddleEast24 and has written for many of the top media platforms across the Middle East.