Donald Trump’s Israel Dilemma

Few political shifts have been so stark as the GOP’s towards semi-isolationism—specifically, 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 Trump—with no political or military service—to clinch the presidency, now twice over. What was promised in Trump’s 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 Trump’s first and second successful campaigns, the veneer of nationalism was forcibly removed when venturing who provided the financial basis for Trump. The ‘self-funded’ 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 “strengthen the State of Israel and the Jewish people.” Prior to Trump, Adelson provided then-nominee Mitt Romney $20 million to defeat President Barack Obama, contrasted by his outspoken support for Obama’s unpopular strikes on Assad’s 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 country—Israel. Adelson previously characterized himself as “one-issue person” for Israel, and his shameless reversal on Obama encapsulates exactly what Trumpism purportedly resents—the interests of a foreign, transnational billionaire prioritized above that of the American people. However, this critical dissonance went unregarded by most among Trump’s base, and his legacy as a self-funded populist strongman remains, despite the Adelsons’ increased to $500 million in 2024 by his widow, was entirely contingent on Trump’s 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 Trump’s victory supposedly reputed. Trump’s 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, Adelson’s investments did not go to waste. Sheldon’s 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, “We [Israel] will forever remember Sheldon and his great contribution to Israel and the Jewish people.” Adelson’s newspaper Israel Hayom served a key role in helping elect Netanyahu as PM in “exerting significant electoral influence” to bolster Netanyahu’s 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, Trump’s son-in-law. Kushner’s disgraced father Charles was considered a “top potential donor” to Bibi, a conflict of interest considering Jared’s appointment by Trump as a “top aide” on Middle Eastern affairs, despite no apparent experience relevant in such a role. Netanyahu’s relations to these key people in the administration’s periphery provided the impetus for the bold, pro-Israel decisions Trump took throughout the administration.

However, Bibi’s 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 Netanyahu’s ‘forever wars’ to the pro-Israel lobby (a likely reference to the Clean Break Memo), with Sachs calling the PM a “deep, dark son of a b*tch.” 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. Trump’s record of unchecked support for Israel seemed not infallible, perhaps providing some sentiment that Miriam Adelson’s aforementioned hundred-million dollar donation was only one voice at the table, among the many other (implicitly less nefarious) donors who tagged on to Trump’s successful campaign. Perhaps some believed that this time, Trump’s ideological commitment as an ‘America First,’ nationalist strongman president would triumph over his donors’ 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 ‘4D Chess’ 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 “foot-in-the-door” negotiation tool which facilitated Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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 Trump’s supposed nationalism.

Following his meeting with Netanyahu, Trump’s 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 grace—for nationalists, or those concerned about a foreign “forever war”—was the Gaza ceasefire, one ineffective and in which Netanyahu has “full backing to Israel’s right to return to fighting” 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 Trump’s 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 fruit—such 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, Trump’s 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 “the most pro-Israel president[‘s]” administration. Trump’s message of implicit non-intervention has yet again failed to come to fruition, and his second term—like the first—firmly places Israeli interest over the American people’s.

Whether or not this hitherto unbridled endorsement of even the most excessive policies on Netanyahu’s agenda will remain unconditional is not known. It is difficult to conjure a scenario in which Trump’s 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 Israel’s 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 Hussein’s Iraq, perhaps before.

Iran’s 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. Biden’s 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 ‘obliterating’ 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 Trump’s rhetoric, and thus far his policy.

Trump’s 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 Trump’s narrow path to maintain his ‘peacemaker’ moniker among the GOP while remaining fiercely committed to Israel.

Israel’s 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 Trump’s request Iran not possess nuclear weapons—Ayatollah Khamenei vowed that “If the US carries out their threat, we will carry out our threat” in response to Trump. With the breakdown of negotiations with the Islamic Republic, Trump’s 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 Trump’s election (and thereby avoid direct intervention).

Many hold a hope that the latter is inevitable – that the first term’s lack of formal war will carry into the second. Trump’s 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, Trump’s 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. Trump’s ideological commitment to nationalism, ostensibly, prevailed over the Israel lobby represented by the likes of Adelson & Kushner. Indeed, Trump put ‘America First.’

The rarity of an administration to not involve themselves in foreign conflict – a common talking point for Trump’s now-forgotten 2020 campaign – 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 Trump’s lap. To assume that Trump will maintain that purported allegiance to ideological nationalism, amidst the inflammatory statements on Iran, selection of ‘foreign policy hawk’ Marco Rubio as Secretary of State, and intensified support for Israel & Netanyahu make that all the less plausible. Miriam Adelson’s 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. Trump’s ideological commitment, and yearning to be remembered as a peacemaker, do play significant roles in what his plan of foreign action will be – 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. Trump’s 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.