Iran just did something remarkable: it publicly endorsed Hamas’s response to Trump’s Gaza peace plan while simultaneously warning about the plan’s “dangerous dimensions.” That carefully worded statement from Iran’s Foreign Ministry on Sunday reveals the precarious constitutional position Trump has put himself in. He’s negotiating a peace deal that requires buy-in from a terrorist organization, acceptance from a regional power that funds that terrorist organization, and cooperation from Israel – all without any formal congressional authorization or treaty ratification process. Iran’s cautious support suggests the deal might actually happen, but it also exposes how modern presidents conduct foreign policy in ways the Framers never imagined and the Constitution doesn’t clearly authorize.

At a Glance

• Iran’s Foreign Ministry endorsed Hamas’s response while warning about “dangerous aspects” of Trump’s plan
• Trump claims the first phase of hostage releases could be completed this week, warning of “massive bloodshed” otherwise
• Netanyahu reportedly pushed back on the deal, with Trump telling him to stop being “so fucking negative”
• The plan includes amnesty for Hamas members, disarmament under international supervision, and phased Israeli withdrawal
• At stake: whether presidents can make binding international commitments without congressional or Senate approval

The Sponsor’s Endorsement

Iran’s statement is politically significant because Hamas doesn’t make major decisions without Tehran’s approval. Iran provides funding, weapons, and strategic guidance to Hamas, making it the de facto power behind any Hamas commitment. When Iran says it “welcomes any decision that would result in stopping the genocide of Palestinians, the withdrawal of the occupying Zionist army from Gaza, respect for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, the entry of humanitarian aid, and the reconstruction of Gaza,” that’s Tehran giving Hamas permission to proceed.

But the warnings are equally important. Iran cautioned about the plan’s “dangerous aspects” and Israel’s history of “obstruction” and “bad faith in fulfilling its promises.” That’s Tehran hedging – supporting the deal publicly while preserving the ability to blame Israel and the U.S. if it falls apart.

Iran’s carefully worded statement does something constitutionally interesting: it treats Trump’s peace plan as if it’s a legitimate international agreement that binds the United States, even though no such agreement has been ratified by the Senate or authorized by Congress.

The Constitution gives the President authority to negotiate with foreign powers, but treaties require two-thirds Senate approval. Executive agreements – which don’t require Senate ratification – are supposed to be based on existing statutory authority or fall within the President’s inherent executive powers. Trump’s Gaza plan doesn’t fit neatly into either category.

Trump’s “Move Fast” Pressure Campaign

Trump posted on social media Sunday that technical teams will meet Monday in Egypt to “work through and clarify the final details,” adding that he’s been told “the first phase should be completed this week.” He concluded with characteristic threat: “TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE OR, MASSIVE BLOODSHED WILL FOLLOW – SOMETHING THAT NOBODY WANTS TO SEE!”

That’s the President of the United States publicly threatening both Israel and Hamas with consequences if they don’t accept his deal on his timeline. It’s extraordinarily aggressive diplomacy that treats the U.S. president as supreme arbiter of Middle East peace.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that Hamas has “agreed to the president’s hostage release framework,” though he acknowledged “these are people I trust 100% nor should we.” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed predictions that hostages could be home “in a matter of days.”

But Netanyahu is reportedly less enthusiastic. According to Axios, Trump told Netanyahu during a Friday call: “I don’t know why you’re always so fucking negative. This is a win. Take it.” Israeli sources downplayed the disagreement, but the tension reveals a fundamental problem: Trump is negotiating terms that bind Israel without Netanyahu’s full buy-in.

“Until the first clause – the release of all the hostages, living and dead – until the last of the hostages, all of them, are transferred to Israeli territory, we will not move on to any other clause.” – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Netanyahu told right-wing Israeli groups Sunday that Israel won’t proceed with any other element of Trump’s plan until every hostage is released. That’s a significant caveat that could derail the entire agreement if Hamas holds back even one hostage.

The Constitutional Problem With Presidential Peace Deals

Here’s where Trump’s approach creates constitutional complications: he’s making commitments on behalf of the United States that will require ongoing implementation, funding, and potentially military enforcement – all without congressional authorization.

The plan calls for Hamas to disarm and hand over weapons to a “Palestinian-Egyptian authority under international supervision.” Who provides that supervision? If it’s American troops or American funding for international monitors, that requires congressional appropriations. If it’s commitments to defend the agreement militarily, that might require congressional authorization for use of military force.

The plan also promises Hamas members who disarm will receive “amnesty” and “safe passage to receiving countries.” As we’ve discussed before, the President can’t grant amnesty to foreign nationals for crimes they haven’t been charged with in U.S. courts. But he can make foreign policy commitments not to pursue them. The question is whether future administrations are bound by those commitments.

Article II gives the President broad authority over foreign affairs, but the Framers deliberately split war powers and treaty-making authority between the executive and legislative branches. When presidents negotiate peace deals that commit American resources, credibility, and potentially military force, they’re operating in constitutional gray area.

The Disarmament Details Nobody’s Discussing

Al-Arabiya reported Sunday that Hamas had agreed to hand over weapons to a Palestinian-Egyptian body under international supervision. Hamas sources later denied this, calling the claims “misleading, incorrect, and baseless.” That contradiction suggests the details of disarmament – the most crucial element of any lasting peace – remain deeply contested.

Even if Hamas agrees in principle to disarmament, who verifies compliance? Who enforces it if Hamas cheats? The plan doesn’t clearly answer these questions, and without clear answers, any agreement becomes unenforceable.

This is exactly the kind of implementation detail that would normally be worked out in treaty negotiations, then submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. The Senate would ask hard questions: What happens if Hamas doesn’t fully disarm? What’s America’s commitment if Israel claims Hamas is violating the agreement? What happens when Trump leaves office – is the next president bound by these commitments?

By bypassing the treaty process, Trump avoids those questions. But he also creates agreements that might not survive his presidency because they lack the democratic legitimacy that Senate ratification provides.

Iran’s Strategic Calculation

Iran’s endorsement suggests Tehran believes this deal serves its interests more than continued war. That calculation likely includes several factors: Hamas is severely degraded militarily after two years of fighting, continued war risks complete destruction of Iran’s Gaza proxy, and a deal that preserves some Hamas role in future Palestinian governance keeps Iranian influence alive.

Iran’s warning about “dangerous aspects” likely refers to clauses requiring full disarmament and Palestinian Authority control of Gaza. Iran doesn’t want to lose its foothold in Gaza, so any deal that genuinely disarms Hamas and brings in PA technocrats threatens Iranian interests.

But Iran also knows that Trump has limited attention span and patience for Middle East peace processes. If Iran can get Hamas to accept a deal that sounds good on paper but is vague on enforcement, they preserve options to rearm and rebuild influence later.

The statement that “any decision on this matter rests with the Palestinian people and resistance” is diplomatic cover – Iran claiming it’s not dictating to Hamas while simultaneously giving approval through this public endorsement.

What the Founders Would Say

The Framers were deeply concerned about preventing presidents from making commitments that bound the nation without broader democratic input. That’s why they required treaties to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate – an extraordinarily high bar deliberately designed to ensure major international commitments had broad support.

Hamilton argued in Federalist 75 that treaty-making power “relates neither to the execution of the subsisting laws, nor to the enaction of new ones” but rather occupies “a distinct department” requiring both executive negotiation skill and legislative deliberation. He wrote that treaties should be approved by the Senate because “the vast importance of the trust, and the operation of treaties as laws, plead strongly for the participation of the whole or a portion of the legislative body in the office of making them.”

Madison would likely argue that Trump’s Gaza plan – which commits the United States to supporting a complex peace process, potentially providing international supervision, and making promises about how the U.S. will respond to various scenarios – is exactly the kind of agreement that should go through the treaty process.

But modern foreign policy has evolved far beyond what the Framers imagined. Presidents routinely make executive agreements that bypass Senate ratification, claiming they’re exercising inherent executive power over foreign affairs. Courts have generally allowed this, though the boundaries remain unclear.

The Multi-National Endorsement

Foreign ministers from Qatar, Jordan, UAE, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt issued a joint statement Sunday praising Hamas’s “readiness” to meet Trump’s demands and expressing support for eventual full Israeli withdrawal and Palestinian Authority return to Gaza.

That broad regional support is significant – Trump has assembled backing from both Sunni Arab states and countries with varying relationships to Hamas. Getting Saudi Arabia and Egypt on the same page with Turkey and Qatar is genuine diplomatic achievement.

But none of these countries are making binding commitments either. They’re expressing support for a framework, not pledging troops or money for implementation. When the time comes to actually enforce disarmament, provide international supervision, or rebuild Gaza, will these countries follow through?

International diplomacy often produces impressive joint statements that paper over fundamental disagreements about implementation. The real test comes when someone has to send troops or spend money.

The Hostage Release Timeline

Hamas sources told Al-Arabiya that operatives in Gaza have begun collecting bodies of dead hostages across the Strip, and that the organization demands Israel halt aerial strikes so they can complete the task. The sources said transferring the bodies will take time and claimed there’s “American flexibility” on timing.

That detail reveals potential problems. If Hamas can’t immediately produce all hostages because some bodies are in areas under Israeli bombardment or rubble, the 48-hour timeline Trump has promoted becomes impossible. Netanyahu has said Israel won’t proceed with any other element until every hostage is returned. That’s a recipe for the deal collapsing before it starts.

Trump’s pressure campaign – demanding rapid implementation while threatening “massive bloodshed” if talks fail – might backfire if the practical logistics of collecting and transferring hostages require more time than his political timeline allows.

According to Trump’s plan, Israel is expected to release 250 Palestinian prisoners serving life sentences plus 1,700 detainees from Gaza arrested after October 7, 2023. That prisoner exchange itself requires complex logistics and internal Israeli political management.

The Constitutional Reality of Modern Diplomacy

Trump’s Gaza peace push demonstrates how far presidential foreign policy authority has expanded beyond what the Constitution clearly authorizes. He’s negotiating terms with terrorist organizations, making commitments about amnesty and safe passage, promising phased withdrawals that commit American diplomatic capital, and threatening consequences for non-compliance – all without congressional involvement.

Iran’s endorsement suggests the deal might actually happen, at least in its first phase of hostage releases. But the long-term implementation – disarmament, governance transition, reconstruction – requires sustained commitment that goes beyond any single president’s term.

The Framers designed the treaty process to ensure major international commitments had democratic legitimacy and staying power beyond individual presidencies. By using executive agreements and personal diplomacy instead, modern presidents achieve flexibility and speed. But they sacrifice durability and democratic accountability.

Whether Trump’s Gaza deal succeeds or fails, it won’t resolve the underlying constitutional question: how much authority do presidents have to commit the United States to complex international agreements without congressional or Senate approval? Iran, Hamas, Israel, and regional powers are all treating Trump’s plan as binding on America. But constitutionally, it might not survive past January 2029.

That’s the paradox of modern presidential foreign policy: the more authority presidents claim, the less durable their achievements become. And in the Middle East, where agreements require decades of implementation, durability matters more than speed.