As the IDF continue carrying out targeted strikes against terrorist operatives in Gaza, officials at the White House and the Board of Peace are trying to preserve what they see as the Trump administration’s most ambitious diplomatic initiative: Hamas’s complete disarmament, the transfer of civilian governance to a technocratic Palestinian administration, the deployment of an international stabilization force, and the transformation of Gaza from a terrorist stronghold into a territory focused on reconstruction.
Yet with each passing day, the gap between that diplomatic vision and the operational reality on the ground appears to be widening.
On Saturday and Sunday, the IDF announced a series of precision strikes against Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and Army of Islam operatives, including killing field commanders and Nukhba terrorists who participated in the October 7 massacre.
According to the military, all of those targeted were actively advancing terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians and IDF troops, and were eliminated to remove imminent threats. The IDF also stressed that its forces remain deployed in Gaza in accordance with the existing agreement and will continue operating against any security threat.
From Israel’s perspective, there is no contradiction. Even as diplomatic efforts continue, Jerusalem maintains that it cannot relinquish its right - or its obligation - to act against terrorists actively plotting attacks.
Diplomatic pressure meets operational reality
It is precisely here, however, that an increasingly visible point of tension has emerged with Washington.
Nikolay Mladenov, the Board of Peace’s High Representative for Gaza, warned this week that two days of Israeli strikes had resulted in civilian casualties and damage to critical medical infrastructure, coming after months of intensive efforts by the United States, Egypt, Qatar, Turkey, and the Board of Peace to persuade Hamas to accept the roadmap for implementing President Donald Trump’s comprehensive Gaza plan.
Mladenov stressed that both sides have obligations under both the Comprehensive Peace Plan and the Sharm el-Sheikh agreement. He said his team is working around the clock with all parties and regional mediators “to create the space necessary for the full implementation of the President’s plan,” concluding that lasting peace remains difficult but achievable if every party makes its best effort.
His comments were not made in isolation.
During a background briefing held by senior White House and Board of Peace officials following the announcement of the Gaza roadmap, officials were asked directly what would happen if Israel failed to fulfill its commitments under the agreement. Their response was unusually direct.
They emphasized that Washington is asking Israel to do nothing beyond what it had already accepted under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point framework. However, they added that if Israel failed to uphold those commitments, they would be "very, very disappointed.” They stressed that Israel is expected to honor the original agreement just as the administration expects Hamas to fulfill its own obligations.
Washington emphasizes verification, not trust
At the same time, those same officials made clear that they fully understand Israel’s skepticism.
They acknowledged that Jerusalem had initially doubted Hamas would ever agree to release all the hostages or return the bodies of those killed. Today, they said, Israeli officials remain deeply skeptical that Hamas will actually surrender its weapons.
For that reason, they argued, the roadmap is not built on trust but on verification. Every phase is conditional upon independent confirmation that the previous phase has been completed. In other words, Washington is not asking Israel to trust Hamas. It is asking Israel to trust the verification mechanism that it is constructing.
The friction between security and diplomacy
That is also where the friction begins.
When the IDF eliminates a Nukhba commander involved in the October 7 massacre - or terrorists whom Israeli intelligence identifies as actively planning attacks - Jerusalem views those operations as a legitimate exercise of self-defense and a necessary security obligation.
For the architects of Trump’s Gaza initiative, however, every new strike risks complicating the political environment needed to move the roadmap forward, while potentially allowing Hamas to argue that Israel is failing to uphold the spirit of the agreement.
This suggests that American officials are concerned about more than Hamas’s willingness to disarm. They are equally focused on keeping Israel within the diplomatic framework they have spent months building.
That does not mean Washington opposes Israeli military operations. On the contrary, officials repeatedly stressed during the briefing that the roadmap’s ultimate objective is to ensure Gaza can never again serve as a launching pad for attacks against Israel.
Yet from the administration’s perspective, as the diplomatic process advances, every military operation carries political consequences extending far beyond its immediate tactical value.
Managing an increasingly delicate balance
That may ultimately become the Trump administration’s greatest challenge in Gaza - not simply convincing Hamas to relinquish its weapons, but managing the constant tension between Israel’s legitimate security requirements and Washington’s determination to advance an unprecedented reconstruction and demilitarization project.
From Israel’s standpoint, there is little indication that military planners would suspend targeted operations against active terrorists simply to protect the diplomatic process. As long as threats remain, Israeli officials argue, the military will continue acting against them.
Ultimately, the success of Trump’s Gaza initiative may depend on more than Hamas’s willingness to disarm. It may hinge on whether Washington and Jerusalem can manage the increasingly delicate balance between Israel’s operational freedom to defend itself and America’s effort to preserve the diplomatic framework it hopes will reshape Gaza’s future.