The U.S. and Israel – inseparable allies?

Editorial Credit: Syndi Pilar

The U.S.-Israel alliance has long been one of the most enduring partnerships in modern geopolitics, built on shared democratic values, mutual security interests, and deep military and economic cooperation. Since the establishment of the Israeli state, successive U.S. administrations have provided unwavering diplomatic support and substantial military aid, while Israel has functioned as a pivotal strategic partner in the geopolitically volatile Middle East. Yet beneath this durable bond lies a growing tension between perceived strategic alignment. 

Trump’s first term pursued a highly personalised foreign policy, with Jared Kushner driving the Abraham Accords through personal diplomacy and economic incentives. In contrast, his second term is shaped by a more fragmented and ideologically diverse MAGA movement—marked by competing factions and a shift away from family-led diplomacy toward a more nationalist, isolationist, and transactional approach that increasingly complicates traditional alliances, including with Israel. For instance, the Trump administration’s decision to engage in both direct and secret talks with Hamas without prior consultation with Israeli leadership signalled a notable divergence in regional objectives. Alongside a renewed fervour for political theatre in the vein the Gaza Riviera and talk of putting Palestinians into the World Cup Village accommodation in Qatar.   

Yet in their hour of need, the 12-day-war spanning June 13th-25th 2025, the United States reaffirmed the strength of its commitment to the “special relationship” by providing decisive support to Israel, particularly in efforts aimed at deterring Iranian nuclear ambitions which are a shared strategic interest. The existence of these disparities, however, raises some critical questions: is the U.S.-Israel relationship still grounded in strategic necessity, or is it increasingly upheld by political inertia and legacy commitments that no longer reflect current geopolitical realities? And What is the extent of the influence of President Trump’s personal ambitions to cement his legacy as a great dealmaker and harbinger of peace? 

The foundations of U.S.–Israel relations   

U.S. military aid to Israel has been a central pillar of the bilateral relationship since the 1978 Camp David Accords, which linked aid to regional peace efforts. This support was institutionalised through a series of 10-year Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs), beginning in 1998. The most recent MOU, signed in 2016, committed $38 billion over a decade, the largest such package in U.S. history, reinforcing Israel’s military edge and strategic alignment with American regional interests. Currently Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. aid, receiving $310bn since its foundation, $3.8 bn every year between 2019 and 2028 under the current MOU, and a further $12.5bn in emergency aid authorised by Congress following the October 7 attacks. Though numerous American administrations have sought to disentangle the United States from the Middle East the next MOU, up for renewal in 2029, is reported to commit an annual $4bn until 2032 where it will decrease by $250mn annually until 2047.   

Trump’s Middle East: ally, broker, or opportunist?  

President Trump’s Middle East policy, particularly with regard to Israel, reflects a dual-track ambition: national interest and personal legacy-building. Publicly, he framed his actions as rooted in “America First” principles - securing U.S. influence and regional stability. Privately, however, he pursued what has been interpreted as a concerted campaign to be recognised as a global peacemaker, notably by seeking a Nobel Peace Prize. His repeated referencing of Obama’s award and public dissatisfaction with being “overlooked” underscore a personal drive for symbolic validation.  

1. Abraham Accords 1: Kushner’s playbook 
   Jared Kushner’s “Peace Through Prosperity” plan reshaped regional diplomacy by prioritising economic normalisation. The 2020 Abraham Accords saw Israel formalise ties with the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco through a blend of arms deals, economic incentives, and heavy Gulf lobbying in Washington. Though marketed as historic peace deals, they resembled transactional agreements focused on mutual interests and U.S. influence. Critics noted the accords sidelined core political grievances, and concerns were later raised about Kushner’s post-administration financial ties to Gulf stakeholders. 

2. Post–October 7: a shift in Gulf strategy 
   The Israel–Hamas war triggered a recalibration in the Gulf. As public outrage mounted over Gaza, normalisation efforts slowed. Saudi Arabia and others began linking future ties with Israel to real progress on Palestinian statehood. In early 2025, Trump pivoted, launching a series of bilateral deals with Gulf states that notably excluded Israel. These talks centred on arms sales, investment, and sanctions relief, revealing a strategic shift: Gulf monarchies were repositioning themselves not as junior partners to U.S.-Israel interests, but as regional power brokers on their own terms. Gulf leaders also expect renewed diplomatic engagement, including on Iran and Syria. They seek U.S. support to ease sanctions, such as the Caesar Act, to enable Gulf-led reconstruction in Syria. In exchange for strategic cooperation, Gulf states are offering major investment packages to the U.S. including a pledge of $1.4tn over a decade from the UAE. Also U.S. concessions on high-tech exports (AI, semiconductors) and trade (tariffs, CFIUS approvals) to GCC states. Favouring Trump’s transactional style, they prioritise security and influence over ideological conditionalities. As the GCC states move to deepen ties with China and Russia, they increasingly expect tangible U.S. policy reciprocation, not symbolic alignment.  

3. Gulf hedging: balancing U.S., Iran, and China 
   Gulf states are now actively hedging—engaging diplomatically with Iran, buying drones and defence systems from China and Turkey, and pressuring Washington for formal security guarantees. While they continue to seek advanced U.S. systems like the F-35 and Patriots, they increasingly demand binding commitments in return. Symbolic gestures and vague assurances are no longer enough, these countries want Major NonNATO ally status and protection against Iran and it’s proxies. In the ongoing struggle against Iran and its network of proxies, Israel has emerged as a world-leading security actor. Coupled with the normalisation of diplomatic ties under the Abraham Accords framework, this has positioned Israel as an increasingly reliable partner for GCC states, particularly as concerns grow over rising isolationist fluctuations in MAGA America. 

4. After the 12-Day War: new power calculations 
   The June 23, 2025 missile attack on U.S. bases by Iran, in Qatar, as part of the 12 day war highlighted the Gulf’s continued dependence on American and Israeli security, renewing internal debates over strategic autonomy. Up until the 12 day war the Gulf states had been hedging: expanding diplomatic outreach to Iran, diversifying arms sources, including from China and Turkey, while maintaining core ties with the U.S. and Israel. They continue to seek American security guarantees, including advanced systems like F-35s, but remain reluctant to take on more overt military roles in regional conflicts. The status of further normalisation with Israel hinges on the “day after” in Gaza and how well received the new normal becomes of Israel taking assertive preventative action across the region, such as in Syria (in defence of the Druze). 

The MAGA movement and Israel  

The MAGA movement, which brought Trump to power twice, was a distinct departure from the Republican rights' liberal interventionist establishment. Trump’s Middle East strategy has splintering MAGA itself into internal conflict, as prominent conservative figures like Tucker Carlson, openly oppose the Trump’s interpretation of isolationism when it came to U.S. direct attacks on Iran.

The Factions: 

Among the three factions, the isolationist camp diverges most sharply, its prioritisation of U.S. sovereignty and a restrained foreign policy places it in stark contrast to both the Pro-Israel and MAGA Centrist factions. Isolationists warn that blind support for Israel risks entangling the U.S. in unnecessary conflicts, and prefer a recalibrated approach that leverages Israel’s military dominance without overcommitting American resources.   

In the midst of MAGA debate regarding involvement in direct attacks on Iran, Vice President J.D. Vance unveiled,  “The Trump Doctrine” , a three-step strategy; defining a clear national interest, pursuing aggressive diplomacy, and resorting to overwhelming force followed by immediate withdrawal. The doctrine represents a notable departure from the United States’ traditionally cautious approach to military engagement in the Middle East. Analysts argue that the doctrine lacks consistency and is an attempt to offer a tidy framework to often unpredictable behaviour.  The U.S. intervention through “Operation Midnight Hammer,” which involved coordinated airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites, has been widely criticised for bypassing the diplomatic phase of the framework and contradicting the administration’s previously stated isolationist principles. The doctrine could be seen as a piece of party management, with the true doctrine being spoken by Trump himself when he said “You don’t know that I’m going to even [bomb Iran] […] I may do it. I may not do it. Nobody knows what I’m going to do...” Trump has repeatedly leveraged strategy ambiguity and political theatre to cut deals he believes are in America’s interests.  

President Trump’s wins following the 12-day War? 

• Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has nominated President Trump for a Nobel Peace Prize.  

• The Middle East seems prepared for the impossible to become possible with the prospect of a ceasefire in Gaza and it is hoped that normalisation discussions will follow.  

• Trump’s image as a strong leader on the global stage has been bolstered.  

The U.S.–Israel–Europe triangle: deception or diplomacy? What we have learnt from the 12 day war about the new US/Israel playbook?    

The recent 12-Day War has revealed the evolving strategic dynamics of the U.S.–Israel–Europe relationship, raising questions about whether current actions reflect genuine diplomacy or calculated deception. America’s direct military involvement, through “Operation Midnight Hammer,” marked a significant departure from diplomatic solutions and alignment with Israeli military objectives, targeting Iranian nuclear infrastructure. This coordination has drawn concern from European allies, particularly the E3, who have expressed unease over the apparent sidelining of diplomatic channels and the undermining of the JCPOA framework. Analysts suggest that Washington’s close alignment with Israel may have involved a strategy of deliberate ambiguity, wherein the U.S. tacitly approved Israeli action while publicly maintaining plausible deniability. This has left European states navigating a complex diplomatic landscape, torn between supporting a hardline U.S. and Israel and upholding multilateral norms rooted in non-proliferation and diplomatic engagement. The conflict has underscored a growing divergence in transatlantic approaches to Middle East policy, but more critically, calls into question the long-term coherence of Western strategic alignment.  

Looking Ahead... 

The European Union, E3, and Iran met on July 25, 2025, in Turkey, to begin nuclear talks ahead of the expiration of the U.N. resolution governing the 2015 nuclear deal on October 18, 2025. Unless the snapback mechanism is triggered by mid-September, all U.N. sanctions on Iran will be lifted. This leaves a narrowing window for diplomacy. Meanwhile, French President Emmanuel Macron has announced plans to unilaterally recognise a Palestinian state at the U.N. (in September), a move opposed by the U.S.  

Would it be wise for France’s European allies to follow Macron’s lead? The has embolden Hamas, with ceasefire talks brokered by the U.S. and Arab partners abandoned by Hamas. UK Prime Minister, Sir Keir Starmer, has renewed calls for a ceasefire, describing the humanitarian crisis in Gaza as “unspeakable and indefensible,” and stated that a ceasefire is a step toward eventual recognition of a Palestinian state. The UK’s official stance on unilateral recognition remains unknown – but the potential for such a move to damage the UK’s relationship with both Israel and the U.S. should not be underplayed, and will be a consideration.