Follow us on social

Donald Trump Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman

Why Trump ghosted Israel: He likes 'winning'

Leaving Netanyahu off his itinerary of must-see leaders was a tactical, not so much a strategic, move.

Analysis | Middle East

President Donald Trump's recent whirlwind tour of the Middle East was a spectacle of calculated opulence and diplomatic signaling, highlighting the significance of the visit to the Gulf monarchs.

Fighter jets escorted Air Force One into Saudi, Qatari, and Emirati airspace, and once on the ground, the president’s hosts unfurled lavish displays of hospitality: traditional sword dances, Arabian horses, and gleaming military salutes.

Yet, amid this carefully choreographed fanfare, Israel, the United States’ long-declared major strategic partner, was conspicuously absent from the itinerary. The decision to bypass Israel, particularly at a time of acute regional tension as a result of the Gaza conflict, reveals a core tenet of Trump's approach to statecraft: the relentless pursuit of headline-grabbing “wins” and achievable outcomes that can be quickly packaged for political consumption.

The Gaza quagmire, a gordian knot of historical grievances and harsh contemporary realities, offers no such low-hanging fruit. Speaking in Doha on May 15, President Trump himself condemned the October 7 Hamas attack as "one of the worst, most atrocious attacks anyone has ever seen." Yet, these strong words were delivered from Qatar, a key mediator in the conflict, not from Jerusalem (which Trump controversially recognized as Israel's capital during his first term).

With ceasefire negotiations between Israel and Hamas repeatedly stalling, the prospect of Trump brokering a breakthrough remains increasingly distant. For a president who thrives on the image of a dealmaker, a visit to Israel under current circumstances only risks highlighting impotence.

In contrast, the Gulf states offered a far more fertile ground for success. With their investment-hungry Sovereign Wealth Funds and increasing assertiveness in regional diplomacy, nations like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Oman have transformed themselves into indispensable economic partners and political mediators. Their financial muscle and sophisticated diplomatic backchannels are shaping outcomes not just in the Israeli-Palestinian arena but across a range of geopolitical hotspots, from Russia-Ukraine to the Indian subcontinent and in ongoing nuclear talks between the U.S. and Iran.

Beyond the Arabian Peninsula, Syria’s carefully curated re-entry into the regional fold provided another stage for Trump to claim a diplomatic victory. At the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum in Riyadh, he declared, "After discussing the situation in Syria with the Crown Prince [Mohammed bin Salman]... and also with President Erdogan of Turkey… I will be ordering the cessation of sanctions against Syria in order to give them a chance at greatness."

He wished the war-torn nation "good luck," urging it to "show us something very special" — a pronouncement met with roaring applause and a standing ovation.

This move, culminating in a direct meeting between Trump and Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, was hailed by al-Sharaa in a subsequent national address where he described the decision as "historic and courageous.” Al-Sharaa added that "it alleviates the suffering of the people, helps their rebirth and lays the foundations for stability in the region."

For Trump, facilitating Syria’s return, however complicated the road ahead, offers a narrative of peacemaking and decisive action.

It would be a misreading, however, to interpret this selective engagement as the death knell of the U.S.-Israel alliance. The strategic partnership is too deeply institutionalized, too interwoven with decades of bipartisan U.S. policy and substantial security commitments, to be undone by a single presidential itinerary.

The U.S. State Department, as recently as April, reiterated that "steadfast support for Israel’s security has been a cornerstone of American foreign policy." This support translates into over $130 billion in cumulative bilateral assistance and an ongoing 10-year Memorandum of Understanding that funnels $3.3 billion in annual Foreign Military Financing and $500 million towards missile defence programs.

The U.S. commitment to maintaining Israel's Qualitative Military Edge remains official policy, enshrined in assessments and legal frameworks such as the United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014, which formally declared Israel a "major strategic partner." Indeed, influential policy circles, such as the Heritage Foundation, advocate not for a dismantling of the relationship, but for its evolution into an "equal strategic partnership" by mid-century — one less reliant on unidirectional aid and more focused on “burden-sharing,” as the White House described it.

The Abraham Accords, a signature achievement of Trump's first term, also visibly remain on his agenda. During his meeting with Syria's al-Sharaa, Trump extended an invitation for Syria to join the normalization agreements. This persistence highlights a continued U.S. interest in fostering a broader regional realignment that benefits Israel.

Nevertheless, the immediate optics and objectives of Trump's latest Middle Eastern foray were clear. The photo opportunities with Gulf leaders, the announcements of colossal investment deals, and the facilitation of Syria's reintegration provided far more political points than a visit to Israel, currently mired in the complexities of the Gaza war and the strained international standing of its current leadership.

Even Trump's own musings on Gaza, voiced in Doha — "I have concepts for Gaza that I think are very good. Make it a freedom zone. Let the United States get involved and make it just a freedom zone" — suggest a preference for grand, if vague, U.S.-led solutions conceived from afar, rather than as a result of direct engagement with the intractable realities on the ground.

In Riyadh, Trump proclaimed a new era of American engagement, one where the U.S. would refrain from "giving you lectures on how to live." This rhetoric, appealing to autocratic sensibilities in the Gulf, aligns seamlessly with a foreign policy that values transactional gains over ideological crusades. The Gulf capitals, with their investment windfalls and willingness to facilitate Trump's peacemaker image, currently offer a more conducive environment for this approach than Israel.


Thus, Trump’s decision to skip Israel on this occasion appears less a fundamental strategic pivot and more a tactical deferral. A recognition that, for now, the diplomatic wins he craves lie elsewhere. The enduring structures of the U.S.-Israel alliance may persist, but its operational dynamics under Trump are clearly hostage to the president's unyielding quest for deal-making pageantry.


Top photo credit : Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman reacts next to U.S. President Donald Trump during the Saudi-U.S. Investment Forum, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, May 13, 2025. REUTERS/Brian Snyder
Analysis | Middle East
Afghanistan withdrawal
Lloyd Austin, Kenneth McKenzie, and Mark Milley in 2021. (MSNBC screengrab)

Turns out leaving Afghanistan did not unleash terror on US or region

Military Industrial Complex

It will be four years since the U.S. withdrew from Afghanistan on Aug. 30, 2021, ending a nearly 20-year occupation that could serve as a poster child for mission creep.

What began in October 2001 as a narrow intervention to destroy al-Qaeda, the terrorist group that perpetrated the 9/11 attacks, and topple the Taliban government for refusing to hand over al-Qaeda’s leader, Osama bin Laden, morphed into an open-ended nation-building operation that killed 2,334 U.S. military personnel and wounded over 20,000 more.

keep readingShow less
Francois Bayrou Emmanuel Macron
Top image credit: France's Prime Minister Francois Bayrou arrives to hear France's President Emmanuel Macron deliver a speech to army leaders at l'Hotel de Brienne in Paris on July 13, 2025, on the eve of the annual Bastille Day Parade in the French capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe facing revolts, promising more guns with no money

Europe

If you wanted to create a classic recipe for political crisis, you could well choose a mixture of a stagnant economy, a huge and growing public debt, a perceived need radically to increase military spending, an immigration crisis, a deeply unpopular president, a government without a majority in parliament, and growing radical parties on the right and left.

In other words, France today. And France’s crisis is only one part of the growing crisis of Western Europe as a whole, with serious implications for the future of transatlantic relations.

keep readingShow less
Starmer Macron Merz
Top image credit: France's President Emmanuel Macron, Britain's Prime Minister Keir Starmer and Germany's Chancellor Friedrich Merz arrive at Kyiv railway station on May 10, 2025, ahead of a gathering of European leaders in the Ukrainian capital. LUDOVIC MARIN/Pool via REUTERS

Europe's snapback gamble risks killing diplomacy with Iran

Middle East

Europe appears set to move from threats to action. According to reports, the E3 — Britain, France, and Germany — will likely trigger the United Nations “snapback” process this week. Created under the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA), this mechanism allows any participant to restore pre-2015 U.N. sanctions if Iran is judged to be in violation of its commitments.

The mechanism contains a twist that makes it so potent. Normally, the Security Council operates on the assumption that sanctions need affirmative consensus to pass. But under snapback, the logic is reversed. Once invoked, a 30-day clock begins. Sanctions automatically return unless the Security Council votes to keep them suspended, meaning any permanent member can force their reimposition with a single veto.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.