A Schizophrenic President Trump
As the euphoria of President Trump’s first two weeks back in the Whitehouse slowly recedes. Looking at the new administration’s foreign policy for the Middle East is timely. It will surprise many who religiously believe Trump to be 100% behind the Jewish State to find him toying with the idea of rapprochement with the Mullahs in Tehran, mimicking the Obama – Biden administrations’ tilt towards Iran at the expense of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Trump’s disorganised thinking and behaviour towards the Middle East should alert Israel to future uncertainties and vulnerabilities when dealing with a schizophrenic President Trump.
Trump, at this early stage, has no intention of unleashing American airpower on a soon-to-be nuclear-armed Iran. He will return to his first administration’s policy of ”maximum pressure” while conceding ground to Iran in the belief that he can constrain Iran’s ambitions for Middle East hegemony by working in tandem to police the region while restraining Erdogan’s Turkey from further moves into Syria and beyond.
Where does this leave Israel? Unfortunately, the meat in the sandwich. Squeezed between Turkey in the North and Iran and proxies in the North East. Forced to concede all its gains from the war against Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. Trump will, of course, package this betrayal as a ‘win-win’ for Israel, providing billions of dollars of military aid to calm Jewish anxieties in the event of an uncertain future U.S.-Israel relationship.
The recent hostage deal was the first brick in this schizophrenic Middle East policy employing containment over pre-emption. Despite a history of failure in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and most recently, the first nine months following October 7 2023.
As the disappointment with the Trump Presidency grows within specific sectors of the Israeli government and its wider society, Israel will find itself more alone than ever, facing a Trump-endorsed two-state solution gouged out of Israel’s biblical ‘Heartland’.
Trump’s Middle East Policy: Calculated, Not Schizophrenic
The claim that President Trump’s approach to the Middle East is schizophrenic overlooks a fundamental reality: Trump’s policies, however unconventional, are deeply rooted in strategic pragmatism rather than ideological rigidity. While his style may seem erratic, his track record from his first term shows a clear pattern of prioritizing American interests while maintaining strong support for Israel.
Maximum Pressure on Iran: A Proven Strategy
Trump’s policy of “maximum pressure” on Iran was the most effective deterrent against Tehran’s nuclear ambitions in recent history. Unlike the Obama-Biden administration’s appeasement approach, Trump’s first-term strategy led to severe economic hardship for Iran, reducing its ability to fund proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas. While military intervention is not his first option, Trump understands that economic and diplomatic leverage can be just as powerful.
The assertion that Trump is “toying” with Iran misreads his realpolitik approach. Engaging diplomatically with adversaries does not equate to betrayal—it is often necessary to maintain leverage and avoid unnecessary conflict. Under Trump, Iran knows that U.S. tolerance has limits, and any move towards rapprochement is likely tactical rather than a reversal of policy.
U.S. Support for Israel: Unprecedented and Unwavering
Trump’s past actions—moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing the Golan Heights, and brokering the Abraham Accords—demonstrate his deep commitment to Israel’s security and sovereignty. The idea that he would “force” Israel to concede its military gains ignores his history of strengthening Israel’s regional position rather than weakening it.
Furthermore, Trump’s policy of reinforcing alliances between Israel and Sunni Arab states counters Iran’s regional influence in a way that previous administrations failed to achieve. Unlike Obama’s naive engagement with Tehran, Trump’s approach ensures that Israel remains a dominant force rather than a pawn in a larger geopolitical game.
Containment vs. Preemption: A Necessary Balance
While preemptive action is sometimes necessary, history has shown that overextension in conflicts—Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan—leads to long-term instability. Trump’s preference for containment is not a sign of weakness but a recognition that strategic patience can be more effective than immediate military intervention. The belief that every conflict requires direct American involvement has repeatedly proven disastrous.
Conclusion: A President Who Puts Israel First
Labeling Trump’s Middle East policy as schizophrenic underestimates the complexity of international strategy. While no leader is beyond criticism, Trump’s record shows a consistent alignment with Israeli interests. He may not be predictable in style, but in substance, he has delivered tangible victories for Israel’s security and sovereignty. Rather than rejecting his approach outright, Israel must recognize the opportunities within his broader strategy and continue to engage constructively to ensure its interests remain at the forefront.