By: Fern Sidman

In a direct and uncompromising assessment of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that the path to peace in the region remains blocked as long as Hamas retains military capabilities and control. Speaking on WABC Radio’s Sid & Friends in the Morning, Rubio laid out his position in clear terms, telling listeners that the conflict’s resolution will depend entirely on Hamas’s elimination as a functional threat.

VIN News reported that Rubio, who has maintained a consistent focus on Middle East security policy since assuming the role of Secretary of State, framed the current war not merely as a cyclical flare-up but as a decisive confrontation with an entrenched terrorist organization.

According to the information provided in the VIN News report, Rubio repeatedly emphasized that the conflict will not end through diplomatic formulas or symbolic gestures. “They have held captive the 2 million people that live in Gaza. That’s their human shield,” he said, pointing to the group’s long-documented tactic of embedding military infrastructure within civilian areas.

Rubio argued that while international discourse has shifted toward the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, such focus often comes without acknowledgment of Hamas’s role in creating and sustaining the suffering. “We should spend an equal amount of time talking about the fact that… there are 20 living human beings in deep suffering underneath tunnels,” he said, referring to the hostages still held following Hamas’s October 7 attack.

The VIN News reported noted that Rubio’s remarks sought to keep attention fixed on the underlying cause of the conflict: a group committed to Israel’s destruction and willing to inflict suffering on both Israelis and Gazans to achieve its aims.

Rubio devoted particular attention to the plight of hostages—individuals whose situation has faded from daily headlines but who remain at the center of the conflict’s human cost. The Secretary of State underscored that these captives are not simply victims of war but symbols of Hamas’s deliberate strategy to use human life as leverage.

This framing reflects ongoing U.S. diplomatic and intelligence efforts to secure the release of hostages through indirect channels, even as military operations continue. Rubio’s comments, however, made clear that hostage recovery is linked to the broader aim of removing Hamas as a military and political actor in Gaza.

VIN News also reported on Rubio’s response to a question about whether the administration would designate the Muslim Brotherhood and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as terrorist organizations. Rubio confirmed that such a move is under review but cautioned that the process is legally complex and subject to judicial challenge.

He noted that any designation would need to be legally sound to withstand scrutiny in court. “Federal judges could block such designations through nationwide injunctions,” Rubio explained, highlighting the procedural hurdles in translating political will into enforceable policy.

These remarks signal the administration’s cautious approach in an area where previous attempts by U.S. officials have faced legal setbacks.

Turning to the role of foreign governments, Rubio dismissed recent statements from European countries—including France, the UK, and Ireland—calling for an end to hostilities or criticizing Israel’s conduct. As the VIN News report indicated, Rubio characterized these diplomatic gestures as “largely symbolic” and primarily intended for domestic political audiences in those countries.

“This conflict won’t be settled by UN resolutions or political posturing,” he said. “It will be decided on the ground.”

This position aligns with the administration’s emphasis on security realities rather than external political pressures as the determining factor in how and when the conflict will end.

Rubio’s central argument is that any discussion of a post-war settlement or long-term governance of Gaza must begin with the removal of Hamas from power. According to Rubio, so long as the organization retains the ability to operate militarily and exert control over the territory’s population, the conditions for peace simply do not exist.

The Secretary of State’s comments reinforce a position that has been consistent across multiple U.S. administrations—that terrorist groups holding political and territorial control represent an inherent obstacle to conflict resolution.

While the interview focused on Gaza, the VIN News report noted that Rubio’s comments fit within a wider strategic framework regarding U.S. policy in the Middle East. His emphasis on defeating Hamas as a precondition for peace echoes similar approaches to other non-state armed groups in the region, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon.

In this view, the stability of the broader region—and the security of U.S. allies—depends on confronting and dismantling terrorist networks that blend political authority with armed force.

Rubio’s statements also come at a politically sensitive time domestically, with U.S. public opinion divided over the conduct of Israel’s military campaign and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The VIN News report pointed out that the administration’s stance, as articulated by Rubio, seeks to maintain support among pro-Israel constituencies while responding to international and domestic calls for humanitarian considerations.

By explicitly naming Hamas as the root cause of Gaza’s humanitarian crisis, Rubio positions the administration as both firm on security and mindful of the civilian toll—placing responsibility squarely on the organization’s leadership and tactics.

In summing up his position, Rubio returned to a theme that VIN News described as central to the administration’s outlook: that peace will not be brokered through diplomatic shortcuts or symbolic resolutions. “It will be decided on the ground,” he reiterated, emphasizing the primacy of military realities over political declarations.

This perspective reflects both the practical constraints of diplomacy in active conflict zones and a broader skepticism toward international forums that have historically been critical of Israel while failing to curb aggression from armed non-state actors.

As conveyed in the VIN News coverage, Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s remarks present a stark and unambiguous view of the Gaza conflict’s trajectory. His insistence that peace is impossible under Hamas rule, coupled with his dismissal of symbolic diplomatic gestures, frames the U.S. position as grounded in security imperatives rather than political expediency.

By focusing attention on the enduring captivity of hostages, the exploitation of Gaza’s population as human shields, and the need for any legal action to withstand judicial scrutiny, Rubio offered a comprehensive—if sobering—assessment of the challenges ahead.

Whether these conditions can be met in the near term remains uncertain. But as Rubio made clear, the administration sees no viable path to a durable peace until Hamas’s grip on Gaza is broken—a position that sets the tone for U.S. engagement in the conflict in the critical months ahead.