Following America’s June 21 attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities, President Donald Trump continues to balance isolationist impulses with hawkish tendencies, prioritizing rapid, cost-effective victories. Israel should adapt to his shifting interests and internalize that it is no longer about a values-based alliance with the U.S.
A few months into his second term, Trump has left observers puzzled about his foreign policy doctrine, or whether he has one at all. Though he is undeniably an opportunist, a trait requiring flexibility, there are still signs that hint at his preferences and impulses, even if they don’t form a cohesive worldview.
Despite Trump’s inclination to avoid entanglement in costly conflicts, when he sees a quick and inexpensive military victory on the horizon, his desire to project strength takes over. We saw this with the strike on the commander of the Iranian Quds Force, Qasem Suleimani, in January 2020, and his triumphalist rhetoric over the raid that killed Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, in October 2019. His decision to order a strike on Iran’s Fordow, Natanz, and Ispahan nuclear facilities underscores the tension that lies at the heart of his foreign policy.
“Sometimes, a quick strike is the only way to send a message,” Trump said following the operation. “We had to do it. The world’s been waiting too long.”
Trump still seeks to minimize U.S. physical involvement abroad, whether in terms of money, aid, or American lives. He views himself as a peacemaker, eager to end long-standing conflicts rather than provoke new ones. Many members of his MAGA coalition stressed his anti-war, ‘America first’ focus during the campaign, and several have been sharply critical of this recent intervention. Above all, Trump craves the image of a diplomatic master, securing deals that might earn him accolades, especially the Nobel Peace Prize.
His engagement on the Houthi front presents a model—he led American airstrikes but withdrew when he felt the cost was no longer justified. In his view, he achieved the maximum in terms of American interests, even if Israel is still under bombardment.
We can gain more profound insight into his thinking by examining his engagement with the two types of Republicans surrounding him: the isolationists from the MAGA movement and the hawks—neo-conservatives and evangelical Christians.
Before the attack on Iran, it appeared that the influence of the hawkish elements had diminished compared to his previous term. MAGA supporters reiterated a firm message whereby the wars of the 21st century will not be decided by militaries, but by economic agreements, technological collaboration, and regional alliances. In their view, if a war can end with a ceremonial letter or a publicized signing ceremony, why send a battalion?
Perhaps Thomas Bark, Trump’s ambassador to Turkey, who also serves as the administration’s envoy for Syrian affairs, best described the isolationist perspective on the Middle East. “A hundred years ago, the West imposed maps, mandates, borders drawn in pencil, and foreign rule,” Bark wrote last month on his X account, following his meeting with Syria’s interim president, Ahmad al-Shara. “The Sykes-Picot Agreement divided Syria and the broader region for imperial needs—not for peace. Generations have suffered greatly as a result of this mistake. We won’t repeat it again. The era of Western intervention is over. The future belongs to regional solutions and diplomacy based on respect.”
Trump’s shift toward military engagement in the Middle East took many by surprise, particularly after his early statements about avoiding costly foreign interventions. His first trip abroad after reassuming office, except for Pope Francis’s funeral, was to the Middle East. He chose to visit the richest countries in the region to show success in signing lucrative deals. The strategy was to gain business and glory as a peacemaker. His ambition to add Saudi Arabia to the Abraham Accords had to be delayed because he understood that nothing is achievable with the Netanyahu government and his evangelical base on the core issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After the attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, that strategy is now facing its first major test—and fierce criticism from his coalition.
In this instance, Trump ordered a strike after an attack led by Israel, which undermined diplomatic efforts to limit Iran’s nuclear program—efforts that were already facing challenges due to America’s insistence on a zero-enrichment condition. Trump justified the action as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, framing it as a “game-changer” in the region that will bring about peace through force. It was time to “show strength,” Trump stated in the wake of the operation.
The situation in Iran presented a unique opportunity—a high-stakes military operation that could be portrayed as a quick win for U.S. interests. Unlike past American interventions, which protracted ground wars, the attack on the Iranian nuclear facilities was designed to be a surgical strike that would limit Iran’s nuclear progress without demanding a lengthy commitment. The challenge is that the attack may not eliminate Iran’s ability to obtain military nuclear capability, and Trump will face a dilemma on how to continue.
This raises another question: can Trump keep this as a one-off move to send a strong signal, or will it mark the beginning of a broader shift in U.S. military policy? Iran, has They vowed retaliation, and there is widespread concern about a possible escalation of hostilities in the region.
Israel’s leaders, who have long called for military action against Iran’s nuclear program, were quick to support Trump’s action, praising the strike as a critical blow against Iranian nuclear ambitions. Indeed, many view Netanyahu’s decision to strike Iran while negotiations were still ongoing as an effort to corner Trump into exactly this decision.
The attack energized Trump’s hawkish supporters at home, who saw it as a daring move to take on a longstanding foe. His supporters argue that the president is finally taking the necessary actions to ensure that the U.S. is respected globally and that Iran’s nuclear ambitions will no longer be tolerated.
However, critics of the attack, both Republican isolationists and Democrats who believe in “diplomacy first,” warn that the risks of escalation could have far-reaching consequences. Iran has already promised retaliation, and the broader international community remains skeptical of Trump’s approach, based on a concern of a scenario in which the attack could push Iran to quit the Non-Proliferation Treaty and sneak to a bomb as their only deterrence, following in North Korea’s footsteps.
Trump’s dealings with allies have always been transactional, focused on pushing for greater financial and military contributions from them. While the recent attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities could be considered an act of solidarity with Israel’s security concerns, it is likely that Trump’s expectations are that Israel must now step up and ensure that its interests align with U.S. priorities—militarily, economically, and politically.
This is not an anti-Israel policy. Trump sees himself as a true friend of Israel, even if like many others, he struggles to distinguish between the good of Israel and the good of its not popular government. But the current relationship is a different kind of friendship than the one that existed between the countries during the times of previous American presidents. With Trump, it is a friendship based on transactions. It is not a union of values, nor is it a blood alliance.
In Israel, we are starting to feel what the Europeans felt during the president’s first term: Want protection? Pay up. This is a message that is important for us to internalize ahead of the negotiations on the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will regulate the continuation of American military aid for the next 10 years, starting in 2028, following the generous MOU signed with President Obama.
Isolationist elements in the administration and advisors from the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank have already hinted that a wealthy country like Israel should not receive American aid for free.
Trump’s approach is no longer about unconditional support. If Israel wants the full backing of the U.S., it must be willing to shoulder more of the burden, whether in the form of military investments or of diplomatic concessions. With this shift in U.S. policy, Israel must be prepared for a future where American military intervention is not guaranteed, and the nature of its strategic alliance with the U.S. may look very different from what it has been in the past. No more unconditional love. Maybe it is an opportunity for Israel to mature.