If not for Israel’s veto power over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, the Trump administration might have secured peace in Gaza, stabilized relations with Iran, and clinched a deal with Saudi Arabia to help build a nuclear program for the kingdom.
OK, that last “opportunity” deserved a hard pass, unless you reckon nuclear proliferation in the world’s most volatile region somehow serves U.S. interests. But in journalism, three makes a trend, so I’ve got myself a column.
And America has got itself a big problem: Israeli pushback on President Donald Trump’s efforts to build a better Middle East shows how our most entangling of alliances undermines U.S. sovereignty.
The Gaza example is the most recent. Washington has enabled Israel’s assault on Gaza, and Trump would now like to use his Board of Peace, which he oversees, to bring peace to the Palestinian enclave. That’s quite the task, and Israel, an ostensible client state of the U.S., isn’t making it any easier.
Last Thursday, Trump announced on social media that the Board had reached “a HISTORIC agreement for the COMPLETE DISARMAMENT of Hamas and all other armed groups in Gaza.” Trump added, “As disarmament is completed, Israeli forces will withdraw.”
Sorry, Mr. President, but you’ve been reading fake news.
“Contrary to inaccurate reports,” the Board of Peace said in a statement this Monday, the Israeli military would withdraw forces only after Hamas handed over all its weapons.
That’s not what Trump had said, and it’s not what Hamas had understood the phased agreement to require. So, what happened? The Times of Israel reports:
The US-backed Board of Peace appeared to change its conditions for the IDF to withdraw from Gaza after its top officials held a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Jerusalem on Monday, shortly before a fresh Israeli airstrike was reported in the enclave.
It’s déjà vu all over again. In late July, the Trump administration announced an agreement to develop a Saudi civilian nuclear program. But there was a catch. The very next day, Trump clarified on Truth Social that the deal “is totally subject to Saudi Arabia joining the very respected and successful Abraham Accords.”
By “Trump clarified,” I mean that he retroactively decreed a new stipulation apparently designed to kill a deal opposed by Israel. The chances in the near future of Riyadh joining the Abraham Accords—which normalize relations between Muslim nations and Israel—are approximately, checking my math, consulting my copy of Introduction to Statistical Concepts: not gonna freakin’ happen.
Again, the death of the U.S.–Saudi nuclear deal is a good thing, but it was brought about by a very bad thing, namely, Israel’s de facto veto power over Trump’s Middle East policy.
One Mideast nuclear agreement that actually would be good for American interests is the one with Iran that Trump was on the verge of securing in 2025. Early in his second term, Trump aimed to strike a deal that would deny Iran a pathway to the bomb. Statements by White House officials indicated Tehran could still be allowed to enrich uranium for civilian nuclear purposes.
But in spring 2025, something changed, and the Trump administration adopted the hardline position that Iran must commit to zero enrichment. That was a non-starter for Tehran, as the Islamic Republic had repeatedly declared.
Comments by Joe Kent, who resigned this March from a top counterterrorism position in the administration, shed light on what happened: Israel pressured the White House to move the goal posts. In an interview with The American Conservative, Kent recounted that Israel and its American supporters promoted the zero-enrichment demand to “break up the agreement” and set Trump on the path to a regime-change war.
I expect we’ll soon have a fourth “Israeli veto” example to sustain the trend, and this one might illustrate the fundamental problem best of all. In July, Trump said that he’ll consider selling America’s F-35 fighter jet to Turkey. Apparently, that’s not the kind of thing American presidents are allowed to do.
Weeks after Trump’s comments, the State Department said Turkey hasn’t met “conditions” necessary to receive the plane. The main problem is legitimate: Turkey possesses a surface-to-air missile system made by Russia, raising intelligence risks since that system can spy on nearby aircraft. But even if Ankara relinquished it, a major hurdle would still stand between the Turks and the F-35.
You’ll never guess the hurdle.
“Israel reportedly has pressed Trump not to provide Turkey with the aircraft, amid fears that a sale could weaken Israel’s qualitative military edge,” Fox News reports.
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
That last phrase is key. Since the Cold War, Washington has followed a policy of maintaining Israel’s military superiority in its region. In 2008, the policy was codified into law by the Naval Vessel Transfer Act, which obliges the president to monitor and uphold Israel’s ability to defeat “any credible conventional military threat from any individual state or possible coalition of states or from non-state actors.”
It’s an odd policy. Realism 101 says the U.S. should foster a balance of power in other regions, but this law requires the commander-in-chief to do the opposite: underwrite Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. Obviously, the three episodes dealt with above are part of a problem that transcends the Trump administration.
For America First patriots devoted to safeguarding our nation’s independence in foreign affairs, this problem demands attention and concern. Though of course, our special friend in the Holy Land will move heaven and earth to veto our efforts to solve it.
