Trump and Israel

As the United States passes the first 100 days of the Trump presidency, Israel remains hopeful, but with increasing concerns about the Trump administration’s priorities and full understanding of the situation.

Following Prime Minister Netanyahu’s meeting with President Trump on 8 April, when Netanyahu must have been somewhat disappointed, they had a phone call on 22 April.

Posting on Truth Social, Trump wrote: “I’ve just spoken to Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, relative to numerous subjects including Trade, Iran, etc. The call went very well—We are on the same side of every issue.”

That appears to be true, but to a point.

At this moment in time, there has been no change to the 17% tariff on Israeli goods, Trump has publicly warned Israel off from attacking Iran’s nuclear capabilities, for now, and the plight of the 59 hostages remain unchanged.

On the hostages, Trump has announced multiple deadlines for their release, and whilst no one doubts his sincerity, he is realising that it is more difficult than he may have previously imagined.

Trump has become the master of announcing red lines and then spinning any change to them, as having been intended in any case.

Israelis were forced into shelters yet again, in the past few days, as the Houthis attacked. A missile landed successfully very close to Ben Gurion airport, evading both Israeli and American defence systems.

The US and Israel jointly struck the Houthis on Monday night.

Israel, after prewarning Yemen, further bombed various targets including Sanaa airport.

On Tuesday, Israel was disturbingly blindsided by a Trump announcement on a deal between the US and the Houthis, mediated with the help of Oman. “They said please don’t bomb us anymore and we’re not going to attack your ships,” Trump said.

Israel was neither forewarned by the US, nor mentioned as part of the agreement. Indeed, the Houthis have specifically stated that attacks against Israel will not stop.

Two possible explanations are on the table.

Either the Houthis do not want to lose face by formally including a cessation of hostilities with Israel, but will ultimately stop firing missiles at Israel.

Or indeed Trump has made a deal without including Israel, or its interests and held unswervingly to ‘America first,’ but with no second.

Only time will tell.

The Jerusalem Post reported that Shiri Fein-Grossman, the former Head of Regional Affairs at the Israel National Security Council, told the NYP in regards to Trump, “His assumption that actors like Hamas or Iran are primarily motivated by a desire to live — and can therefore be reasoned with through direct engagement — reflects a dangerous misunderstanding of their long-term ideological goals.”

There is the danger of a pattern forming.

In March, Witkoff, in an interview with Tucker Carlson (strange judgement in itself), admitted that maybe he was being “duped” by Hamas.

Israel is increasingly worried that the Trump administration may also be being duped by Iran.

After three weekly meetings between Witkoff and Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi through Omani intermediaries, talks Israel are not present at, Trump announced that “A deal is going to happen.”

Leading Netanyahu to publicly warn that “A bad deal is worse than no deal.”

Trump increased the sanctions on Iran, to encourage the negotiations to continue, but it remains to be seen whether Trump’s ultimate red lines and those of Israel’s, align.

In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Trump presented contradictory aims on Iran, at one point saying “Total dismantlement. Yes, that is all I would accept.” Then later in the same interview stating “The only thing they can’t have is a nuclear weapon.”

In regards to Iran developing nuclear energy for civilian purposes, Trump said “I think that I would be open to hearing it, you know.”

This was after Secretary of State Marco Rubio had remarked just three days earlier, that “the only countries in the world that enrich uranium are the ones that have nuclear weapons.”

To complicate the picture even further, Senator Lindsey Graham, a strong supporter of both Trump and Israel, following Trump’s announcement of a deal with the Houthis, wrote on X:

“As to the Houthis continuing to attack Israel – they do so at Iran’s own peril. Without Iran, the Houthis do not possess the capability to attack America, international shipping or Israel.

To my friends in Israel, do what you have to do to protect your airspace and your people. It is long past time to consider hitting Iran hard. It wouldn’t take much to put Iran out of the oil business.”

Ironically, Netanyahu who is held to be one of Israel’s greatest public relations operators, projects an image of being right wing and reckless in many circles, whilst in fact he himself is cautious and generally slow to resort to military action.

There is much discussion in Israel about the application of what has become known as the ‘Begin Doctrine.’ This essentially says, that Israel will not allow countries threatening its destruction, to acquire the means to carry out that threat.

In 1981, Prime Minister Begin, ordered the Israeli Air Force to attack the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq, destroying its nuclear capability.

Prime Minister Olmert, in 2007, similarly ordered the destruction of the Syrian nuclear reactor.

Iran is at its weakest point in decades, and with its air defences knocked out, for now.

Despite popular support in Israel coming from many government and importantly also, opposition figures, to destroy the Iranian nuclear threat, Netanyahu has so far been very reluctant to take such action.

Amongst Netanyahu’s calculations are that Trump, a friendly president, has forbidden this, at least for the moment.

Purely theoretically, one wonders whether Israel would have struck by now, if Kamala Harris had won the US election, caring less about upsetting what looked like being a far less friendly presidency.

Both Begin and Olmert were willing to take the action required in removing an existential threat and to live with the consequences.

A very difficult decision for Netanyahu will be, if Trump does make a deal with Iran, but one that will not be that much better than that previously made by Obama.

There are also differences emerging in regards to Gaza and a change in threat assessment and tone.

Trump has moved from “maximum pressure” on Gazans to assist in getting the hostages released, to lecturing Netanyahu on aid, telling journalists on Air Force One “We’ve got to be good to Gaza. Those people are suffering. There’s a very big need for food, medicine.

On Monday Trump said that the “Gazans are being treated very badly by Hamas,” representing a perceptional shift from how Israelis see the embeddedness and support relationship between Hamas and the rest of Gaza.

7 October proved to be a massive miscalculation by Hamas, Iran and Iran’s other proxies and has led, with tremendous Israeli sacrifice, to the redrawing of the Middle East.

Outsourcing Israeli policy, even to friendly allies, is not how I assume the founders of the modern State of Israel imagined self-determination would look.