As Donald Trump assumed the presidency of the United States, many in Israel, from government officials to security experts, anticipated a dramatic deepening in the US-Israel partnership. The Trump campaign had vocally criticized Iran, signaled staunch support for Israel’s security needs, and promised to take a hard line against Iranian-backed terror networks threatening Israel’s existence. However, five months into Trump’s tenure, Israeli leaders found themselves confronted by a more complex reality, as a series of policy moves highlighted unexpected gaps between American and Israeli interests in the region.
Lede: Policy Gaps Emerge Despite High Expectations
Israel’s leadership entered 2025 expecting strong US backing on Iran, Hamas, and regional defense. Instead, policy divergences on key issues—such as American outreach to Iran, shifting military deployments, approaches to Gaza’s crisis, and diplomatic engagement with regional rivals—have generated renewed concerns in Jerusalem about Washington’s reliability as the region’s primary security partner.
Trump’s Unexpected Negotiation Overture to Iran
One of the clearest points of tension arose when President Trump, during a major press event, declared his willingness to negotiate directly with Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, along with senior security officials, had anticipated a firm American stance supporting Israeli readiness for military action if Iran’s nuclear ambitions moved forward. Instead, Trump’s declaration was seen as a break in the expected policy line—especially as Israel continues to warn of Iran’s sponsorship of terror networks such as Hamas, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad, and its program to destabilize regional governments.
This announcement prompted emergency discussions within the Israeli security cabinet and recalibration of contingency plans, as Israel’s leadership seeks to ensure deterrence against the Iranian threat without assured US military backing.
American Drawdown in the Red Sea Raises Criticism
Another acute disagreement followed the Trump administration’s decision to withdraw US forces from the Red Sea theater days after a Houthi missile—launched from Yemeni territory and guided by Iranian technology—struck near Israel’s main airport. For Israeli defense analysts, the US move was not only poorly timed, but indicative of a worrisome broader retrenchment of American military commitments in the region.
Israel’s security establishment, led by current IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, publicly expressed concern that reduced US naval presence undermines the deterrent posture needed to push back Iranian-sponsored threats, not just to Israel, but to the stability of key Red Sea shipping lanes vital to both regional and global economies.
Diverging Approaches to Gaza Conflict and Hostage Affairs
The Gaza front remains a profound source of policy friction. In the wake of the October 7th massacre—the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust and a turning point in Israel’s conflict with Iranian-backed terror—Israel’s military campaign against Hamas (the Iron Swords War) has prioritized dismantling Hamas’ capabilities and securing the unconditional release of all hostages. Nevertheless, Washington, under President Trump, has advocated for rapid moves toward de-escalation and reconstruction in Gaza—a stance perceived in Jerusalem as premature, risking the consolidation of Hamas’s power if not first coupled with its total military defeat.
The emergence of a US-mediated deal to secure the release of the “American prisoner” Idan Alexander from Gaza, without coordination with or notification to Israeli authorities, further accentuated divisions. Israeli officials maintain that innocent hostages taken by Hamas—men, women, and children abducted by force—are fundamentally different, both morally and legally, from convicted terrorists whose release may be demanded in return. Israeli spokespeople underscored that bypassing Jerusalem in such sensitive matters endangers the wider effort to liberate all hostages and clouds the principled distinction between victims of terror and convicted perpetrators.
US Regional Diplomacy: Embrace of Erdogan and Repositioning in Syria
The scope of disagreement has extended beyond bilateral US-Israel ties. Israel traditionally views Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan as hostile, citing his support for Hamas and frequent anti-Israel rhetoric. Trump’s public support for Erdogan, reiterating their friendship after Netanyahu’s protests, has been met in Israel with dismay, particularly as Ankara continues to offer political and material backing to terror groups operating against Israel.
During a high-profile tour of the region, Trump’s decision to meet in Syria with Abu Mohammad al-Golani—a warlord who transitioned from al-Qaeda leadership to now hold sway over large segments of northwestern Syria—was interpreted as a message of American pragmatism, and perhaps a willingness to break with established alliances. The conspicuous absence of a meeting with Netanyahu further fueled anxiety in Jerusalem over America’s current strategic calculus.
Historical and Regional Context: The Broader War Shaped by Iran
Since 1979, Iran has sought to encircle Israel through its “axis of resistance,” supporting and arming groups such as Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen. The October 7th Hamas massacre underscored the danger of these proxies and exposed persistent weaknesses in regional security architectures. Israel’s response—military operations, hostage rescue attempts, and intensified diplomatic appeals—has been shaped by the conviction that the threat is existential and that the West cannot afford to equivocate on moral and legal distinctions between states upholding the rule of law and terror organizations committed to their destruction.
While US-Israel defense, intelligence, and technological cooperation remain robust, the new policy landscape requires Israel to prepare for independent action, should American support waver in future crises. Defense Minister Israel Katz recently emphasized that Israel will safeguard its vital interests—even if compelled to act alone—insisting on the right to self-defense in the face of Iranian-backed aggression.
Conclusion: Alliance Under Test in an Unstable Region
The strategic partnership between the United States and Israel is fundamentally rooted in shared democratic values and opposition to terror. Yet, the Trump administration’s unanticipated initiatives on Iran, shifting military deployments in the region, and evolving regional alignments have tested both the trust and flexibility of this alliance. As Jerusalem prepares for uncertain months ahead, the lessons of recent policy gaps are clear: Israel’s national survival and security must guide its actions, even as it continues to seek alignment with its most important ally.
The future of US-Israel relations will depend on mutual recognition of both shared interests and critical red lines—particularly in facing down Iranian aggression and supporting the legitimate sovereignty and safety of Israel’s population against all forms of terror.
