There are certain risks that Israel must never take, even if that sometimes means saying a polite but firm no to Trump

Photo: AP Images

IF

anyone believed that Israel’s proven military prowess in its seven-front war against enemies sworn to its destruction established it as the power to be reckoned with in the Middle East, they were mistaken.

In President Trump’s America, money speaks far louder than tanks and warplanes. Trump claims to have extracted about $2 trillion in investments and purchases from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE during his four-day regional swing. However, when you do the math based on the White House press releases regarding specific deals, the figure is closer to $700 billion, which includes deals already in progress and non-binding memoranda of understanding. Even if the $2 trillion figure were accurate, that sum represents a small percentage of America’s $30 trillion annual economy.

Numerous red flags are flapping in the wind. Formulating the foreign policy of the world’s greatest superpower solely on the basis of transactional business arrangements is a gamble.

The proposed $142 billion arms and defense deal with Saudi Arabia exceeds the $130 billion that the US has provided to Israel over its 77 years of statehood. While Saudi Arabia has rivals, it is not surrounded by hostile nations on all sides as Israel is. Qatar, which has spent tens of billions undermining Western values and buying influence in US power centers, will receive $42 billion in defense aid. Concerns have arisen that advanced AI chips, which CEOs of American high-tech companies agreed to sell to Saudi Arabia and the UAE during this trip, could end up in China’s hands.

Trump’s bold decisions, seemingly made with little regard for potential consequences, may not yield the results he is looking for and could even backfire. The risks of empowering unpredictable, autocratic regimes through major arms and economic deals, as well as the possible threat to the long-standing US-Israel alliance, are urgent issues that demand attention and concern.

Trump’s biggest gamble was announcing he would lift sanctions on Syria during his meeting with Syrian warlord Ahmed al-Sharaa, a.k.a. Abu Mohammed al-Julani. This same al-Sharaa had a stint with ISIS before moving to Al-Qaeda in 2013 — a shift the BBC described as his way of “emphasizing a more pragmatic approach to jihad.”

Trump lavished praise on the former pragmatic jihadist, calling him a “young, attractive guy” and a “tough guy [with a] very strong past.”

Senator James Risch (R–Idaho), who chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, wasn’t as effusive, but he released a bipartisan statement with the committee’s leading Democrat, Senator Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, commending the president’s decision.

“This will help Syria remain on the path to freedom from the malign influence of Iran and Russia, from China’s attempt to gain an economic foothold in the Middle East, and from the resurgence of ISIS,” the senators wrote.

Look Before You Leap

If Trump can talk Syria’s al-Sharaa into joining the Abraham Accords with Israel, retaining the Golan Heights and without Turkey pulling al-Sharaa’s strings, that would be an even bigger net positive for Israel.

Trump’s approach, while potentially promising, also carries significant risks. Trusting al-Sharaa is a premature leap of faith, at best, considering his track record.

“Ignoring al-Sharaa’s past could foster an ‘Axis of Al-Qaeda’ from Ankara to Damascus to Doha [Qatar’s capital], which, in turn, could imperil Lebanon’s reconstruction, Jordan’s stability, and Israel’s security,” according to Michael Rubin, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, in an op-ed published by the Middle East Forum.

Rubin noted that al-Sharaa controls only about 35% to 40% of Syria with his estimated 40,000 troops, faces many factions challenging his authority, and personally stands to siphon off hundreds of millions, if not billions, of foreign aid dollars into the accounts of his friends and allies.

“Trump’s approach mirrors past gambles with North Korea and the Taliban, neither of which worked,” Rubin contends. “Syria’s return to the global stage should depend on concrete actions, not promises from former extremists.”

Praise for Trump’s moves came gushing in from prominent Democrats.

Representative Jim Himes of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, praised Trump at a Politico security conference in Washington on Thursday, stating that Trump “played the Middle East pretty darn well.”

Rob Malley, former special envoy to Iran under President Biden and President Obama’s lead negotiator on the original 2015 JCPOA nuclear deal, told Fox News: “It’s hard not to be simultaneously terrified at the thought of the damage he can cause with such power, and awed by his willingness to brazenly shatter so many harmful taboos.”

High praise indeed coming from Malley, who has been under FBI investigation for more than a year, suspected of transferring classified information to his personal email that might have made its way to Iran. Malley has denied any wrongdoing.

Clearing the Air

Trump didn’t seem to make any progress in nuclear negotiations with Iran, nor was that his goal on this trip, but both sides exchanged insults in the media over the weekend. Trump’s rebranding of US foreign policy may have inadvertently strengthened the hand of Iran’s Islamic revolutionary government, a potential negative outcome that should keep us all on high alert.

Referencing the Middle East in general, Trump said the US will “stop giving you lectures on how to live and how to govern your own affairs,” while criticizing “nation-builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits” who “wasted trillions trying to remake the Middle East.”

If the principle of not lecturing other nations on how to govern their affairs applies to Israel as well, this would be a positive outcome. However, if it also means that the US will not champion regime change in Iran, then Trump is missing a golden opportunity.

Trump’s Middle East swing left negotiations regarding an Iran nuclear deal and a cessation of Israel’s military offensive in Gaza, in exchange for the hostages, up in the air. The Houthis continue to fire a ballistic missile a day at Israel, which is paying the price for Trump’s solo deal.

As the new week began with the IDF ramping up its offensive in Gaza, Trump — perhaps still under the influence of his Arab allies — has intensified pressure on Israel to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza, taking a page out of the Biden administration’s playbook.

There is enough handwriting on the wall during the first 120 days of the Trump administration to justify Israeli hand-wringing. Neither Israel nor Trump is seeking a head-on collision. Israel cannot dictate Trump’s foreign policy, just as he cannot dictate Israel’s. Those living in the Middle East are more familiar with the region than Americans. There are certain risks that Israel must never take, even if that sometimes means saying a polite but firm no to Trump.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1062)