USPolitics
Donald Trump’s Israel Dilemma
Donald Trump’s Israel Dilemma
Trump’s peacemaker status is threatened by a bellicose Israel.
By: Reasonactionary đ | 02/11/2025
Consider donating to support AF Post
Few political shifts have been so stark as the GOPâs towards semi-isolationismâspecifically, an "America First" vision of foreign policy. Since the advent of Trumpism (as much as it can be defined), the party of Reagan has taken a sharp turn toward one of Robert Taft, with support of the U.S. playing a major role in world affairs cratering from 87% to 61% within the party. Although this sentiment of a more restrained foreign policy had unquestionably gained ground, this new paradigm has one extremely notable exception: 63% of Republicans favor either maintaining or increasing military aid to Israel. Foreign aid obviously entails foreign involvement, a statement understood by the GOP in regards to Ukraine but not toward the Jewish state.
Central to this struggle is President Donald Trump, whose unlikely first election victory ushered (or perhaps signaled) the shift from the misnomer of "Peace through Strength" to "Americanism not Globalism." The distinction between the two is what allowed someone like Trumpâwith no political or military serviceâto clinch the presidency, now twice over. What was promised in Trumpâs first speech as the Republican nominee was a foreign policy anathema to the previous establishment, the archnemesis of the new, young Trumpism.
Through all the pomp and circumstance of Trumpâs first and second successful campaigns, the veneer of nationalism was forcibly removed when venturing who provided the financial basis for Trump. The âself-fundedâ campaigns of Trump received $424 million from Sheldon Adelson, founder of Las Vegas Sands and (more relevantly) owner of Israeli newspapers Israel Hayom and Makor Rishon. His namesake foundation was founded explicitly to âstrengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people.â Prior to Trump, Adelson provided then-nominee Mitt Romney $20 million to defeat President Barack Obama, contrasted by his outspoken support for Obamaâs unpopular strikes on Assadâs Syria.
Adelson allied with Obama on the strikes in spite of his fierce opposition to him less than a year prior, all for the interest of a foreign countryâIsrael. Adelson previously characterized himself as âone-issue personâ for Israel, and his shameless reversal on Obama encapsulates exactly what Trumpism purportedly resentsâthe interests of a foreign, transnational billionaire prioritized above that of the American people. However, this critical dissonance went unregarded by most among Trumpâs base, and his legacy as a self-funded populist strongman remains, despite the Adelsonsâ increased to $500 million in 2024 by his widow, was entirely contingent on Trumpâs support for the Jewish state. His first term would make good on their investment, as Trump would gift Adelson the infamous decision to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli claims to the city and echoing a soft-interventionism that Trumpâs victory supposedly reputed. Trumpâs Abraham Accords would also grant the Jewish state ties with Bahrain, the UAE, and Sudan, the latter a month after the initial deal (along with over a billion dollars in foreign aid).
Clearly, Adelsonâs investments did not go to waste. Sheldonâs ties with Israel run further through Benjamin Netanyahu, as Adelson was a major benefactor of the Israeli PM. Regarding the late casino mogul, Netanyahu solemnly eulogized, âWe [Israel] will forever remember Sheldon and his great contribution to Israel and the Jewish people.â Adelsonâs newspaper Israel Hayom served a key role in helping elect Netanyahu as PM in âexerting significant electoral influenceâ to bolster Netanyahuâs Likud Party in a turbulent time for the right in Israel.
Further, Netanyahu held a key ally in the first Trump administration through Jared Kushner, Trumpâs son-in-law. Kushnerâs disgraced father Charles was considered a âtop potential donorâ to Bibi, a conflict of interest considering Jaredâs appointment by Trump as a âtop aideâ on Middle Eastern affairs, despite no apparent experience relevant in such a role. Netanyahuâs relations to these key people in the administrationâs periphery provided the impetus for the bold, pro-Israel decisions Trump took throughout the administration.
However, Bibiâs relationship with Trump himself has ostensibly been inconsistent. Trump left the White House in 2020 on bad terms with the Israeli Prime Minister, spurned by his readiness to congratulate Biden on his victory. Trump made headlines earlier this year sharing a video on Truth Social of economist Jeffrey Sachs relating Netanyahuâs âforever warsâ to the pro-Israel lobby (a likely reference to the Clean Break Memo), with Sachs calling the PM a âdeep, dark son of a b*tch.â This ill-sentiment would seemingly be confirmed as Trump would go on to push Netanyahu into a ceasefire with Hamas, using the bully pulpit in order to negotiate peace and attempt to make good on his promise to end the war. Trumpâs record of unchecked support for Israel seemed not infallible, perhaps providing some sentiment that Miriam Adelsonâs aforementioned hundred-million dollar donation was only one voice at the table, among the many other (implicitly less nefarious) donors who tagged on to Trumpâs successful campaign. Perhaps some believed that this time, Trumpâs ideological commitment as an âAmerica First,â nationalist strongman president would triumph over his donorsâ wishes.
Recent events have illuminated this belief as laughably naive (if not malicious). As Netanyahu became the first foreign leader to visit Trump in his second term, Trump subsequently promised to annex the Gaza Strip and ethnically cleanse the native Palestinians, necessarily entailing military intervention if executed. If one is not cretinous enough to appeal to any underlying conspiracy of â4D Chessâ that has excused every single anti-nationalist policy Trump has proposed, it becomes clear what is at play. This is not to imply that Gaza annexation is in any way plausible, but rather the plan represents the âfoot-in-the-doorâ negotiation tool which facilitated Trumpâs success in the business world. Nevertheless, the fact that the purportedly independent President seeking peace will only make those types of demands on behalf of the Israelis reflects for which side he pledges allegiance. This egregious pledge to Netanyahu followed Trumpâs resuming of 2,000-pound bomb supplies to Israel & exceptions for foreign aid for the Jewish state (as well as Egypt & Jordan, for reasons pertaining to Israel), undermining any claim of Trumpâs supposed nationalism.
Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Trumpâs State Department approved $7.4 billion dollars in military sales to the Jewish state, adding to the overwhelming support already manifest towards Israel. His only purported saving graceâfor nationalists, or those concerned about a foreign âforever warââwas the Gaza ceasefire, one ineffective and in which Netanyahu has âfull backing to Israelâs right to return to fightingâ if Israel finds that negotiations in the second stage yield no result (which arguably, they inevitably will).
The Adelsons, like in the first term, did not make their donations in vain; Kushner remains Trumpâs son-in-law and an influence in regards to policy towards the Middle East. The performative animus speculated about against Netanyahu, in Trump's rebuke of the PM for disloyalty & supposed bitterness yielded no tangible fruitâsuch remarks represent perhaps a personal animosity that Trump is inevitably forced to put aside when actual policy is drafted. Netanyahu is simply too integrated into the administration for the President to demand any serious concessions from the Israeli PM to achieve any lasting peace in the region.
In fact, Trumpâs more hospitable climate for Netanyahu perhaps might spur further conflict, as any pushback (no matter how milquetoast) from the Biden administration has been entirely neutered in âthe most pro-Israel president[âs]â administration. Trumpâs message of implicit non-intervention has yet again failed to come to fruition, and his second termâlike the firstâfirmly places Israeli interest over the American peopleâs.
Whether or not this hitherto unbridled endorsement of even the most excessive policies on Netanyahuâs agenda will remain unconditional is not known. It is difficult to conjure a scenario in which Trumpâs support for Israel remains fully unchecked, though similarly difficult to imagine the conditions for which it would not be. Most likely, however, the bolstering of Israelâs goals for hegemony in the region will be firmly tested in regards to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Engaged in a proxy war, the two powers have been wrestling control of the region since the fall of Husseinâs Iraq, perhaps before.
Iranâs strikes against Israel in April & October of last year following a slew of successful elimination of many Hamas & Hezbollah leaders shifted most of the attention of the war from Gaza to Iran, with the powers teetering on formal war since. Bidenâs attempted unfreezing of $6 billion in assets to Iran in exchange for a prisoner swap weakened his political position immensely and was criticized by Trump during the early days of his successful 2024 campaign.
Iran was once again put into the spotlight during the campaign following the first assassination attempt on now-President Trump in Butler, in which he stated his endorsement of America âobliteratingâ Iran if Iran successfully assassinated him (which has since been reiterated). Such a bizarre statement, akin to an incitement, undoubtedly shows the ferocious anti-Iran bent shaping Trumpâs rhetoric, and thus far his policy.
Trumpâs refusal to rule out direct military intervention in the Gaza Strip, alongside the numerous aforementioned gifts to the Jewish state in their war effort, reflects his equal commitment to Israel. These two commitments are workable insofar as the proxy war continues without entailing military intervention against Iran (an action unpopular among the American public), and would thus be Trumpâs narrow path to maintain his âpeacemakerâ moniker among the GOP while remaining fiercely committed to Israel.
Israelâs invasion of Syria following the demise of Iran-backed Hezbollah only expedited the likelihood of an Iranian conflict, and that path has narrowed all the more in the aftermath of the collapse of nuclear negotiations with Iran after Trumpâs request Iran not possess nuclear weaponsâAyatollah Khamenei vowed that âIf the US carries out their threat, we will carry out our threatâ in response to Trump. With the breakdown of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, Trumpâs careful threading of the needle drifts closer to a definitive decision as tensions rise. The decision, to support Israel unequivocally without hesitation for direct intervention, or to commit to the nationalist sovereignty which provided the impetus for Trumpâs election (and thereby avoid direct intervention).
Many hold a hope that the latter is inevitable â that the first termâs lack of formal war will carry into the second. Trumpâs first campaign featured both Adelson bankrolling & Kushner, and yet apart from the embassy relocation and Abraham Accords (which plausibly may have been in our national interest), no egregious detriment to the U.S. on account of Israel occurred. Of course, Trumpâs withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal helped contribute to the current iteration of the proxy Iran-Israel war, but that contribution could not have been foreseen. Trumpâs ideological commitment to nationalism, ostensibly, prevailed over the Israel lobby represented by the likes of Adelson & Kushner. Indeed, Trump put âAmerica First.â
The rarity of an administration to not involve themselves in foreign conflict â a common talking point for Trumpâs now-forgotten 2020 campaign â testifies to the merits of the first Trump term, but also to the unique geopolitical situation Trump found himself in. Trump was mostly able to avoid major conflict by way of that conflict not materializing. It was under Biden, and much to his detriment, that those conflicts finally emerged, and now find themselves in Trumpâs lap. To assume that Trump will maintain that purported allegiance to ideological nationalism, amidst the inflammatory statements on Iran, selection of âforeign policy hawkâ Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and intensified support for Israel & Netanyahu make that all the less plausible. Miriam Adelsonâs pledge of $100 million likely will not go to waste without severe punishment for Trump or the next Republican hopeful, pressured to adopt a more pro-Israel position than Trump (if possible) if he is deemed insufficiently pro-Israel.
The stakes are far greater in the second Trump term for Israeli support, and his recent actions seem to confirm that that will be par the course for the next four years. Trumpâs ideological commitment, and yearning to be remembered as a peacemaker, do play significant roles in what his plan of foreign action will be â this dilemma is key to what legacy Trump will leave during his near-15 year reign in 2029, and will shape American foreign policy for years to come. Trump stands at a pivotal crossroads that will orient the future of the Middle East, steering it toward one of two destinies: either a region where Israel is one power among many, forced to temper its ambitions, or one where it reigns as an unchecked hegemon, its opponents toppled and the vision of the 1996 Clean Break memo realized. While the former can be expected to ensue in a begrudging peace, the latter can only be certain to ensue in more conflict, especially with no guarantee that an unopposed, but equally ambitious, Israel shall not seek to broaden its borders. Trumpâs reputation as the first president after 9/11 under which no new wars broke out seems in jeopardy, as his staunch commitment to the Jewish state is looking increasingly irreconcilable. The President has met a fork in the road, and with Israel banging the drums of war, sooner or later he must make a choice.
Central to this struggle is President Donald Trump, whose unlikely first election victory ushered (or perhaps signaled) the shift from the misnomer of "Peace through Strength" to "Americanism not Globalism." The distinction between the two is what allowed someone like Trumpâwith no political or military serviceâto clinch the presidency, now twice over. What was promised in Trumpâs first speech as the Republican nominee was a foreign policy anathema to the previous establishment, the archnemesis of the new, young Trumpism.
Through all the pomp and circumstance of Trumpâs first and second successful campaigns, the veneer of nationalism was forcibly removed when venturing who provided the financial basis for Trump. The âself-fundedâ campaigns of Trump received $424 million from Sheldon Adelson, founder of Las Vegas Sands and (more relevantly) owner of Israeli newspapers Israel Hayom and Makor Rishon. His namesake foundation was founded explicitly to âstrengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people.â Prior to Trump, Adelson provided then-nominee Mitt Romney $20 million to defeat President Barack Obama, contrasted by his outspoken support for Obamaâs unpopular strikes on Assadâs Syria.
Adelson allied with Obama on the strikes in spite of his fierce opposition to him less than a year prior, all for the interest of a foreign countryâIsrael. Adelson previously characterized himself as âone-issue personâ for Israel, and his shameless reversal on Obama encapsulates exactly what Trumpism purportedly resentsâthe interests of a foreign, transnational billionaire prioritized above that of the American people. However, this critical dissonance went unregarded by most among Trumpâs base, and his legacy as a self-funded populist strongman remains, despite the Adelsonsâ increased to $500 million in 2024 by his widow, was entirely contingent on Trumpâs support for the Jewish state. His first term would make good on their investment, as Trump would gift Adelson the infamous decision to move the United States embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli claims to the city and echoing a soft-interventionism that Trumpâs victory supposedly reputed. Trumpâs Abraham Accords would also grant the Jewish state ties with Bahrain, the UAE, and Sudan, the latter a month after the initial deal (along with over a billion dollars in foreign aid).
Clearly, Adelsonâs investments did not go to waste. Sheldonâs ties with Israel run further through Benjamin Netanyahu, as Adelson was a major benefactor of the Israeli PM. Regarding the late casino mogul, Netanyahu solemnly eulogized, âWe [Israel] will forever remember Sheldon and his great contribution to Israel and the Jewish people.â Adelsonâs newspaper Israel Hayom served a key role in helping elect Netanyahu as PM in âexerting significant electoral influenceâ to bolster Netanyahuâs Likud Party in a turbulent time for the right in Israel.
Further, Netanyahu held a key ally in the first Trump administration through Jared Kushner, Trumpâs son-in-law. Kushnerâs disgraced father Charles was considered a âtop potential donorâ to Bibi, a conflict of interest considering Jaredâs appointment by Trump as a âtop aideâ on Middle Eastern affairs, despite no apparent experience relevant in such a role. Netanyahuâs relations to these key people in the administrationâs periphery provided the impetus for the bold, pro-Israel decisions Trump took throughout the administration.
However, Bibiâs relationship with Trump himself has ostensibly been inconsistent. Trump left the White House in 2020 on bad terms with the Israeli Prime Minister, spurned by his readiness to congratulate Biden on his victory. Trump made headlines earlier this year sharing a video on Truth Social of economist Jeffrey Sachs relating Netanyahuâs âforever warsâ to the pro-Israel lobby (a likely reference to the Clean Break Memo), with Sachs calling the PM a âdeep, dark son of a b*tch.â This ill-sentiment would seemingly be confirmed as Trump would go on to push Netanyahu into a ceasefire with Hamas, using the bully pulpit in order to negotiate peace and attempt to make good on his promise to end the war. Trumpâs record of unchecked support for Israel seemed not infallible, perhaps providing some sentiment that Miriam Adelsonâs aforementioned hundred-million dollar donation was only one voice at the table, among the many other (implicitly less nefarious) donors who tagged on to Trumpâs successful campaign. Perhaps some believed that this time, Trumpâs ideological commitment as an âAmerica First,â nationalist strongman president would triumph over his donorsâ wishes.
Recent events have illuminated this belief as laughably naive (if not malicious). As Netanyahu became the first foreign leader to visit Trump in his second term, Trump subsequently promised to annex the Gaza Strip and ethnically cleanse the native Palestinians, necessarily entailing military intervention if executed. If one is not cretinous enough to appeal to any underlying conspiracy of â4D Chessâ that has excused every single anti-nationalist policy Trump has proposed, it becomes clear what is at play. This is not to imply that Gaza annexation is in any way plausible, but rather the plan represents the âfoot-in-the-doorâ negotiation tool which facilitated Trumpâs success in the business world. Nevertheless, the fact that the purportedly independent President seeking peace will only make those types of demands on behalf of the Israelis reflects for which side he pledges allegiance. This egregious pledge to Netanyahu followed Trumpâs resuming of 2,000-pound bomb supplies to Israel & exceptions for foreign aid for the Jewish state (as well as Egypt & Jordan, for reasons pertaining to Israel), undermining any claim of Trumpâs supposed nationalism.
Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Trumpâs State Department approved $7.4 billion dollars in military sales to the Jewish state, adding to the overwhelming support already manifest towards Israel. His only purported saving graceâfor nationalists, or those concerned about a foreign âforever warââwas the Gaza ceasefire, one ineffective and in which Netanyahu has âfull backing to Israelâs right to return to fightingâ if Israel finds that negotiations in the second stage yield no result (which arguably, they inevitably will).
The Adelsons, like in the first term, did not make their donations in vain; Kushner remains Trumpâs son-in-law and an influence in regards to policy towards the Middle East. The performative animus speculated about against Netanyahu, in Trump's rebuke of the PM for disloyalty & supposed bitterness yielded no tangible fruitâsuch remarks represent perhaps a personal animosity that Trump is inevitably forced to put aside when actual policy is drafted. Netanyahu is simply too integrated into the administration for the President to demand any serious concessions from the Israeli PM to achieve any lasting peace in the region.
In fact, Trumpâs more hospitable climate for Netanyahu perhaps might spur further conflict, as any pushback (no matter how milquetoast) from the Biden administration has been entirely neutered in âthe most pro-Israel president[âs]â administration. Trumpâs message of implicit non-intervention has yet again failed to come to fruition, and his second termâlike the firstâfirmly places Israeli interest over the American peopleâs.
Whether or not this hitherto unbridled endorsement of even the most excessive policies on Netanyahuâs agenda will remain unconditional is not known. It is difficult to conjure a scenario in which Trumpâs support for Israel remains fully unchecked, though similarly difficult to imagine the conditions for which it would not be. Most likely, however, the bolstering of Israelâs goals for hegemony in the region will be firmly tested in regards to the Islamic Republic of Iran. Engaged in a proxy war, the two powers have been wrestling control of the region since the fall of Husseinâs Iraq, perhaps before.
Iranâs strikes against Israel in April & October of last year following a slew of successful elimination of many Hamas & Hezbollah leaders shifted most of the attention of the war from Gaza to Iran, with the powers teetering on formal war since. Bidenâs attempted unfreezing of $6 billion in assets to Iran in exchange for a prisoner swap weakened his political position immensely and was criticized by Trump during the early days of his successful 2024 campaign.
Iran was once again put into the spotlight during the campaign following the first assassination attempt on now-President Trump in Butler, in which he stated his endorsement of America âobliteratingâ Iran if Iran successfully assassinated him (which has since been reiterated). Such a bizarre statement, akin to an incitement, undoubtedly shows the ferocious anti-Iran bent shaping Trumpâs rhetoric, and thus far his policy.
Trumpâs refusal to rule out direct military intervention in the Gaza Strip, alongside the numerous aforementioned gifts to the Jewish state in their war effort, reflects his equal commitment to Israel. These two commitments are workable insofar as the proxy war continues without entailing military intervention against Iran (an action unpopular among the American public), and would thus be Trumpâs narrow path to maintain his âpeacemakerâ moniker among the GOP while remaining fiercely committed to Israel.
Israelâs invasion of Syria following the demise of Iran-backed Hezbollah only expedited the likelihood of an Iranian conflict, and that path has narrowed all the more in the aftermath of the collapse of nuclear negotiations with Iran after Trumpâs request Iran not possess nuclear weaponsâAyatollah Khamenei vowed that âIf the US carries out their threat, we will carry out our threatâ in response to Trump. With the breakdown of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, Trumpâs careful threading of the needle drifts closer to a definitive decision as tensions rise. The decision, to support Israel unequivocally without hesitation for direct intervention, or to commit to the nationalist sovereignty which provided the impetus for Trumpâs election (and thereby avoid direct intervention).
Many hold a hope that the latter is inevitable â that the first termâs lack of formal war will carry into the second. Trumpâs first campaign featured both Adelson bankrolling & Kushner, and yet apart from the embassy relocation and Abraham Accords (which plausibly may have been in our national interest), no egregious detriment to the U.S. on account of Israel occurred. Of course, Trumpâs withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal helped contribute to the current iteration of the proxy Iran-Israel war, but that contribution could not have been foreseen. Trumpâs ideological commitment to nationalism, ostensibly, prevailed over the Israel lobby represented by the likes of Adelson & Kushner. Indeed, Trump put âAmerica First.â
The rarity of an administration to not involve themselves in foreign conflict â a common talking point for Trumpâs now-forgotten 2020 campaign â testifies to the merits of the first Trump term, but also to the unique geopolitical situation Trump found himself in. Trump was mostly able to avoid major conflict by way of that conflict not materializing. It was under Biden, and much to his detriment, that those conflicts finally emerged, and now find themselves in Trumpâs lap. To assume that Trump will maintain that purported allegiance to ideological nationalism, amidst the inflammatory statements on Iran, selection of âforeign policy hawkâ Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and intensified support for Israel & Netanyahu make that all the less plausible. Miriam Adelsonâs pledge of $100 million likely will not go to waste without severe punishment for Trump or the next Republican hopeful, pressured to adopt a more pro-Israel position than Trump (if possible) if he is deemed insufficiently pro-Israel.
The stakes are far greater in the second Trump term for Israeli support, and his recent actions seem to confirm that that will be par the course for the next four years. Trumpâs ideological commitment, and yearning to be remembered as a peacemaker, do play significant roles in what his plan of foreign action will be â this dilemma is key to what legacy Trump will leave during his near-15 year reign in 2029, and will shape American foreign policy for years to come. Trump stands at a pivotal crossroads that will orient the future of the Middle East, steering it toward one of two destinies: either a region where Israel is one power among many, forced to temper its ambitions, or one where it reigns as an unchecked hegemon, its opponents toppled and the vision of the 1996 Clean Break memo realized. While the former can be expected to ensue in a begrudging peace, the latter can only be certain to ensue in more conflict, especially with no guarantee that an unopposed, but equally ambitious, Israel shall not seek to broaden its borders. Trumpâs reputation as the first president after 9/11 under which no new wars broke out seems in jeopardy, as his staunch commitment to the Jewish state is looking increasingly irreconcilable. The President has met a fork in the road, and with Israel banging the drums of war, sooner or later he must make a choice.