The Israeli government was woefully unprepared for a new Trump presidency.
To be fair, so was the rest of the world.
Hoping that the bromance would pick up where it left off four years ago, the Israelis can only watch hopelessly from the sidelines as Trump: slaps tariffs on Israel despite Jerusalem removing trade barriers; cuts a deal with the Houthis which allowed them to continue attacking Israel; hastily enters nuclear negotiations with Jerusalem’s archnemesis, Iran; and barrels towards agreements with Saudi Arabia that were once conditioned on normalization with Israel.
It’s clear that the newest iteration of Donald Trump is a man on a mission to close as many deals as possible, whether it be ending the wars in Gaza or Ukraine, brokering trade agreements, or signing investment deals. Trump’s America First ideology is based on transactions and pressure campaigns, not alliances and soft power
Hence, on his tour to the Middle East, Trump only visited countries that had what to offer the United States, namely hundreds of billions of dollars in investments. He wanted good publicity in the eyes of the American people, which he received from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar ponying up petrodollars for the President.
With such an approach, it was obvious President Trump wouldn’t visit Israel on his first Middle East trip, barring a massive breakthrough in hostage negotiations. Israel simply doesn’t have billions of dollars to invest in America. The opposite is true—Jerusalem receives nearly $4 billion a year from Washington. Trump skipping Israel wasn’t a missive about the strength of the relationship but rather of his priorities: political wins and transactions.
The challenge now for Israeli policymakers is to entice the President by making the relationship more transactional. Some have suggested Israel use its tech and innovation advantage, but why not give the President what he’s always been after?
The Art of the Deal
Trump brokered the Abraham Accords in his first term, normalizing relations between Israel and Bahrain, the UAE, and Morocco. He was never coy about wanting Saudi Arabia to join, recently saying it was his “dream” for the Gulf Monarchy to join, though simultaneously acknowledging that was not an immediate possibility.
Rumors swirled prior to October 7th that Saudi Arabia and Israel were closer than ever to a normalization agreement, and even since Hamas’s horrific terror attack reports have persisted. The Saudis will never budge given the current situation, including on the ground in Gaza, but also the Israeli government’s plans (or lack thereof) for the future of the enclave.
The Saudis want to see movement on a political solution for the Palestinian issue, but the Israeli government, dependent on the far right, will never do anything of the sort. For Bibi to even mention a Palestinian state would cause an instant coalition crisis, let alone taking concrete steps towards a political entity in the “day after.”
More importantly, though, it’s also not just the Saudis who want to see an end to the war but Trump himself, who has been very vocal about wanting to end wars, including in Gaza. This gives Israel and Bibi leverage over the US and Saudi Arabia. If the latter want an end to the war, they can incentivize Israel to end it. And what might that incentive be?
A Strike on Iran
Hamas hasn’t been destroyed, but it will take years, if not decades, for the terror group to represent a significant threat to the State of Israel, and that’s without the IDF’s efforts to thwart its rehabilitation. Hezbollah has been weakened to the point where even the feeble Lebanese Armed Forces are able to dismantle the group, Assad has fled Syria (which presents new challenges), and the Houthis, though annoying, are far away geographically with limited capabilities.
Iran, the main financier of these groups, is developing its own (nuclear) capabilities to strike Israel. Tehran is therefore the Jewish State’s biggest threat. Hence, it’s time for the IDF and the political echelon to give serious consideration to focusing their efforts on Iran.
Not only is Iran vulnerable due to sanctions and Israel’s successful elimination of its air defenses late last year, but Bibi has also been itching for this his whole career. He’s made a political career out of fearmongering that Iran would destroy the Jewish State and that only he could protect Israel from the ayatollahs. Israel now has a very good opportunity to strike the belly of the beast, which won’t last forever, especially if the US signs any type of agreement with Iran.
So why not attack? What’s the hold up?
For starters, a joint operation between Jerusalem and Washington would be far superior to anything the Israelis could do alone. Though Israel has demonstrated the ability to hit Iran, only the United States has massive bombers and bunker busting bombs that could penetrate deep enough to inflict meaningful damage. Otherwise, the Israelis would need to rely on a series of air strikes and covert action to destroy nuclear facilities. Having the US on board would also help prepare a regional defense strategy, akin to what we saw during the first two Iranian attacks on Israel.
But getting the US to cooperate may be difficult. President Trump’s preference is for a negotiated agreement, which is unpalatable to the Israelis, who know it will be less than ideal. Reports are saying an interim agreement could be imminent. Trump has repeatedly warned Israel not to attack to preserve negotiations, presenting Jerusalem with a dilemma: irritate a president they need, who also happens to know how to hold a grudge, or take advantage of the strategic window the IDF has now?
Bibi has his back against the wall.
So why not present the President with a deal in return for attacking Iran? The US and Israel can launch a series of air raids against Iranian military infrastructure over the course of a few weeks, and in return Bibi promises to end the war in Gaza and agree to a technocratic government in Gaza, which can potentially get the Saudis on board for normalization.
It would be a win for almost everyone. President Trump would have negotiated an agreement to end the war in Gaza, expanded the Abraham Accords, and could enter negotiations with Iran from a much stronger position. Saudi Arabia would see its regional foe, Iran, weakened, and could claim responsibility for a breakthrough in negotiations on a Palestinian government. And Bibi could finally get his signature win on Iran, find a way out of his Gaza quagmire, cement his legacy as a peacemaker with the Arab world, and rehabilitate his political image—just in time for elections.
Of course, a lot would have to happen perfectly for the stars to align as I predicted. Not everything would go according to plan and there would be significant blowback, perhaps even casualties or operational failures. Maybe the Americans prefer an accord with Iran rather than ending the war in Gaza in the first place.
Nevertheless, the point stands that Israel has leverage to use with a transactional president. If Bibi really wants to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, it’s possible he can put together a strong enough proposal to make it happen—assuming he’s willing to make the necessary concessions in Gaza.
If successfully executed, doing so would be a boon for Israel’s security and long-term future. Ending the war would allow Israel to bring most of its hostages home while easing the burden on the reservists and on the economy. Jerusalem could begin rehabilitating its tattered international image.
The question that remains is does Bibi have the ability and courage to entice the President?
Either way, Israel must adopt to a transactional president and get creative with what it can offer in the absence of investments. Trump’s desire to end wars and broker accords give Israel some ammunition to work with.
