26 What Can Israel Expect from the Trump Administration on Iran? What can Israel expect from the Trump administration going forward regarding Iran and its nuclear weapons program? In his first term, President Donald Trump adopted an overwhelmingly positive approach to Israel. At the time, he needed to maintain the support of his evangelical base, which is strongly pro-Israel, to boost his reelection chances. That dynamic has changed. Since returning to office in January 2025, with no possibility of running again, Trump’s stance toward Israel has become more mixed. On the one hand, Trump greenlit Israeli strikes on Iran’s nuclear and missile programs and even ordered direct US military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities. His administration has strongly backed Israel in its disputes with international bodies like the International Criminal Court. On the other hand, Trump has sidelined Israel on key occasions: when the US negotiated a ceasefire with the Houthis, brokered a deal with Hamas for the release of dual US-Israeli citizen Eden Alexander, and upgraded ties with Gulf states without linking them to normalization with Israel, as he had done previously. He also praised Turkey’s pro-Hamas leader Recep Tayyip Erdoğ� an and supported a stronger Turkish role in Syria, moves that deeply concerned Israel. Even Trump’s eventual support for striking Iran’s nuclear program was not guaranteed. Early on, US policy appeared to accept that Iran would be allowed to enrich uranium, raising fears in Israel that Trump might replicate Obama’s 2015 nuclear deal. Though he ultimately reversed course, his decision to strike came only after hostilities had already begun. Despite these apparent contradictions, Trump’s foreign policy has followed a consistent underlying logic. He lacks a detailed strategy but operates with clear instincts rooted in a tradition known as belligerent isolationism. THE ROOTS OF BELLIGERENT ISOLATIONISM ‘Belligerent isolationism’ was widespread in the Republican Party of the 1930s and in the isolationist America First Committee established in that period. The isolationist element of this approach involved opposition to alliance commitments to defend other countries. The instinct behind this was that America should not ‘spill its blood and waste its treasure’ for the interests of others, even those that share America’s values. Isolationism also involves distrust of international organizations and outright hostility toward their attempts to limit America’s national sovereignty and constrain its foreign policy. Trump’s foreign policy has followed a consistent underlying logic. He lacks a detailed strategy but operates with clear instincts rooted in a tradition known as belligerent isolationism The ‘belligerent’ aspect of the approach means that America should use overwhelming force to defend its narrowly defined vital interests – namely, the homeland and its citizens. After Pearl Harbor, this camp supported the entry of the US into World War II and the atomic bombings of Japan, justifying massive Japanese civilian casualties as a means of avoiding mass casualties among American soldiers in the event of a US invasion. The surprise attack on Pearl Harbor led this camp to favor preemptive Professor Jonathan Rynhold Head of the Department of Political Science and Academic Head of the Jonathan Sacks Institute at Bar-Ilan University, as well as a Senior Researcher at the BESA Center.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU2MA==