Follow us on social

Trump Netanyahu

Trump appears all in for Netanyahu's political survival

The US is being drawn deeper into Middle East conflicts that serve Israel’s needs over American ones

Analysis | Middle East

On March 25, Israeli Prime Minster Benjamin Netanyahu’s government passed its long-delayed 2025 budget. Had the vote failed, it would have automatically triggered snap elections — an outcome Netanyahu appears politically incapable of surviving.

While Israel cited stalled hostage negotiations and ongoing security threats as reasons for ending the U.S.-backed ceasefire in Gaza, Netanyahu’s decision to resume large-scale military operations just days before the vote also appeared aimed at shoring up support from far-right coalition partners such as Itamar Ben Gvir. The budget, framed explicitly by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich as a “war budget,” includes record levels of defense spending and a dramatic increase in funding for Israeli public diplomacy, a nod to the government’s attempt to counteract ongoing international condemnation of Israel’s military actions in Gaza.

The breakdown of ceasefire talks between Israel and Hamas has been widely blamed on Hamas intransigence, with Israeli spokesman Eylon Levy and others, including Trump aide Steve Witkoff on the Tucker Carlson Show, claiming Hamas refused to negotiate. Yet the record shows a different sequence: Israel introduced new terms during phase two of the talks — terms that had not been agreed to — and demanded unilateral acceptance.

The Israelis made this shift without coordination with mediators or the other side, appearing to reject the original framework that Hamas had agreed to based on verbal guarantees from U.S., Egyptian, and Qatari mediators. Despite this, Israel withdrew from negotiations and launched airstrikes across Gaza on March 18, killing more than 400 people in a single night. The White House later confirmed it was consulted in advance, raising questions about the depth of U.S. involvement and endorsement.

The timing of Israel’s decision to unilaterally end the ceasefire also raises questions about the extent to which Netanyahu’s political agenda drove the renewal of the war. Netanyahu narrowly avoided renewed investigations into so-called “Qatargate” — a scandal that involved Netanyahu’s aides allegedly receiving funding from Qatar while managing hostage negotiations. In a move widely seen as preemptive damage control, Netanyahu abruptly moved to fire the head of Shin Bet and began the process to remove the attorney general, in what critics called an attempt to derail investigations.

The attempt to fire both has prompted mass protests, with over 100,000 Israelis returning to the streets to condemn his attempts to avoid accountability, in a show of popular resistance not seen since before the October 7 Hamas attack.

According to Israeli polls, if elections were held today, Netanyahu would likely lose and finally be forced to confront longstanding corruption and fraud charges. War, by contrast, offers him a mechanism to delay legal accountability and maintain control over the national narrative. The question is, why is Donald Trump prioritizing Netanyahu’s political survival over U.S. interests?

When Trump, who was not yet in the White House, pressured Netanyahu to accept phase 1 of the ceasefire, he demonstrated America’s leverage over Israel (which Biden refused to use, and which arguably cost his party the White House). He also reasserted American national interests, which are best served by reducing tensions in the Middle East and avoiding being dragged into yet another endless war in the region.

The extent to which maritime traffic in the Red Sea is central to U.S. interests is debatable. Yet to the extent that the U.S. wishes to prioritize the Suez Canal, the Gaza ceasefire also prompted the Houthis to end their attacks on ships. By enforcing the ceasefire, Trump could have scaled back Operation Prosperity Guardian, a U.S.-led naval mission costing billions and receiving minimal support from the countries that benefit most directly from Red Sea shipping. With the Gaza ceasefire, Trump demonstrated that he would prioritize American interests over those of Netanyahu.

But that moment has passed. By greenlighting Israel’s desire to reinitiate its war on Gaza, Trump is following in Biden’s feckless footsteps, allowing Netanyahu’s political fortunes to put American servicemembers at risk, not only in the Red Sea, but potentially across the region.

This is particularly evident in Trump’s recent decision to escalate airstrikes on Yemen, resulting in 53 civilian deaths, marking the most intense week of bombardment since the closing stages of the Saudi-UAE air campaign in January 2022. While officially framed as a response to Houthi threats to Red Sea shipping, the strikes resumed almost immediately before the Gaza ceasefire collapsed, despite a lull in Houthi attacks during the truce. The Houthis stated their intention to target Israeli vessels on March 11, in response to Israel preventing the entry of any aid or goods into Gaza, in violation of the ceasefire terms, since March 2.

The timing suggests that these operations serve less to protect U.S. assets, and rather more to back Israel’s broader military campaign across the region. In turn, American forces are being pulled towards a war posture directly reflecting Israel’s objectives as opposed to advancing defined American ones.

This shift raises essential questions about the direction of U.S. foreign policy, as despite rhetorical commitments to disentangle from costly, open-ended conflicts, the Trump administration appears increasingly aligned with a regional agenda driven by Netanyahu’s domestic imperatives rather than American strategic alignment, continuing to provide significant material and diplomatic support to Israel.

At a time when the U.S. faces overstretched resources and fraying alliances, subordinating American strategy to Netanyahu’s maneuvering risks entrenching Washington in a broader regional conflict with limited upside.

Trump once demonstrated that the U.S. could shape outcomes and recalibrate its role, but his current posture suggests that leverage is slipping. For a policy framework that claims to put American interests first, this trajectory leads elsewhere.


Top image credit: noamgalai / Shutterstock.com
Analysis | Middle East
Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare
Top photo credit: Seth Harp book jacket (Viking press) US special operators/deviant art/creative commons

Fort Bragg horrors expose dark underbelly of post-9/11 warfare

Media

In 2020 and 2021, 109 U.S. soldiers died at Fort Bragg, the largest military base in the country and the central location for the key Special Operations Units in the American military.

Only four of them were on overseas deployments. The others died stateside, mostly of drug overdoses, violence, or suicide. The situation has hardly improved. It was recently revealed that another 51 soldiers died at Fort Bragg in 2023. According to U.S. government data, these represent more military fatalities than have occurred at the hands of enemy forces in any year since 2013.

keep readingShow less
Trump Netanyahu
Top image credit: President Donald Trump hosts a bilateral dinner for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Monday, July 7, 2025, in the Blue Room. (Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok)

The case for US Middle East retrenchment has never been clearer

Middle East

Is Israel becoming the new hegemon of the Middle East? The answer to this question is an important one.

Preventing the rise of a rival regional hegemon — a state with a preponderance of military and economic power — in Eurasia has long been a core goal of U.S. foreign policy. During the Cold War, Washington feared Soviet dominion over Europe. Today, U.S. policymakers worry that China’s increasingly capable military will crowd the United States out of Asia’s lucrative economic markets. The United States has also acted repeatedly to prevent close allies in Europe and Asia from becoming military competitors, using promises of U.S. military protection to keep them weak and dependent.

keep readingShow less
United Nations
Top image credit: lev radin / Shutterstock.com

Do we need a treaty on neutrality?

Global Crises

In an era of widespread use of economic sanctions, dual-use technology exports, and hybrid warfare, the boundary between peacetime and wartime has become increasingly blurry. Yet understandings of neutrality remain stuck in the time of trench warfare. An updated conception of neutrality, codified through an international treaty, is necessary for global security.

Neutrality in the 21st century is often whatever a country wants it to be. For some, such as the European neutrals like Switzerland and Ireland, it is compatible with non-U.N. sanctions (such as by the European Union) while for others it is not. Countries in the Global South are also more likely to take a case-by-case approach, such as choosing to not take a stance on a specific conflict and instead call for a peaceful resolution while others believe a moral position does not undermine neutrality.

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.