Trump’s strategy exposes Netanyahu’s dangerous miscalculation - opinion

Two critical flash points expose this growing rift: Syria and the fate of the Palestinian nationalist movement. On both, Netanyahu’s government has adopted positions directly contrary to stated American interests, mistaking Trump’s past support for permanent indulgence.

Yet Netanyahu’s government has responded with military strikes, territorial expansion in the buffer zone, and rhetorical dismissal of any engagement with Damascus’s new leadership.

This isn’t merely a tactical disagreement – it represents a fundamental rejection of Trump’s regional architecture. The administration envisions a stable Syria as a cornerstone of Middle Eastern order, a counterweight to Iranian influence, and a partner in the broader normalization project. Israel’s refusal to meaningfully engage with Sharaa, or even to articulate a coherent Syria policy beyond continued military operations, directly undermines American objectives.

Netanyahu appears to believe Trump’s support is unconditional. The National Security Strategy suggests otherwise. Its emphasis on “burden-shifting,” allied responsibility for regional stability, and frustration with partners who “suck us into conflicts and controversies central to their interests but peripheral or irrelevant to our own” should serve as a wake-up call. If Israel is seen as destabilizing Syria rather than supporting its reconstruction, Washington may well conclude that Israeli actions serve narrow interests at America’s expense.

Even more perilous is Netanyahu’s apparent assumption that Trump’s dealmaking focus will indefinitely postpone pressure on the Palestinian issue. The National Security Strategy reveals the opposite: Trump views peace deals as “an effective way to increase stability, strengthen America’s global influence, realign countries and regions toward our interests, and open new markets.”

The document explicitly commits to “expanding the Abraham Accords to more nations in the region and to other countries in the Muslim world.” Any Middle East analyst understands what stands between current normalization and the “wide accords” Trump envisions: Arab states’ demand for progress toward Palestinian statehood.

Here, Netanyahu faces a trap of his own making. His government could propose a credible but delayed pathway – Palestinian statehood contingent on verifiable disarmament, comprehensive deradicalization programs, and fundamental restructuring of the Palestinian Authority. Such a framework would demonstrate Israeli seriousness about eventual two-state outcomes while addressing legitimate security concerns. It would also align with Trump’s transactional approach: concrete steps tied to measurable benchmarks.

The administration’s language about allies should alarm Jerusalem. The strategy warns against partners who “offload the cost of their defense onto the American people” and emphasizes “fairness” in alliance relationships. It explicitly rejects the post-Cold War assumption that “permanent American domination of the entire world was in the best interests of our country,” noting that “the affairs of other countries are our concern only if their activities directly threaten our interests.”

Translation: Trump’s patience with allies who complicate his agenda is limited and transactional. If Netanyahu blocks normalization expansion by refusing to engage on the Palestinian question, Trump will identify who’s responsible for the stalemate.

Netanyahu’s Cyrus framing always rested on a misreading of Trump’s motivations. Cyrus freed the Jews to rebuild the Temple because it served Persian imperial interests – a loyal, grateful client community securing a strategic buffer zone. Trump’s support for Israel has followed similar logic: it advanced American interests in the region while costing relatively little.

But the National Security Strategy reveals an administration fundamentally reassessing Middle Eastern commitment. The region is explicitly de-prioritized, described as no longer “the constant irritant, and potential source of imminent catastrophe that it once was.” Trump views the Middle East through the lens of “partnership, friendship, and investment” – not crisis management requiring sustained American attention.

In this context, an Israel that complicates Syrian stabilization and blocks normalization expansion becomes a liability, not an asset. The strategy’s emphasis on “realignment through peace” and frustration with allies who drag America into peripheral conflicts suggests limited tolerance for Israeli policies that generate friction.

The path forward requires acknowledging uncomfortable realities. First, Trump’s support isn’t ideological or unconditional – it’s transactional and interest-based. Second, American interests in the Middle East now center on stability, commercial opportunity, and burden-shifting to regional partners. Third, Israel must demonstrate it facilitates rather than impedes these objectives.

The alternative is watching Israel transform from regional partner to regional problem in American eyes. Trump’s National Security Strategy offers a choice: align with American interests in Middle Eastern stability and normalization or watch as Washington concludes that Israeli obstinance serves only narrow political interests in Jerusalem.