President Donald Trump is the best leader of the United States that Israel has ever had. He vastly outstrips Former Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who smiled while they worked a knife into the back of the Jewish state. Dwight D. Eisenhower was even worse, far worse. He bullied the Israeli military into returning the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt, after they had won it fair and square in a defensive war. (Ike himself later opined that this was a mistake, according to some commentators).
However, Trump is not the prime minister of Israel. For those who have been Rip Van Winkling it for a few decades, that honor has been taken up by Benjamin Netanyahu. Rather, Trump is the president of the United States. As such, he is obligated to promote the best interests of that country, not the most civilized one in the Middle East.
True, there is a great overlap between the two nations in terms of purposes and goals. A Venn Diagram depicting this relationship would show almost a full overlap between Washington and Jerusalem. It is a two-way street between them, not a one-way avenue. Yes, the U.S. supplies funds to Israel ($6.82 billion in 2024), but Israel returns the favor with intelligence and high-tech defense mechanisms, such as the Iron Dome, David’s Sling, Arrow II and III, and the Iron Beam. However, this diagram would show gaps. The views of the two administrations are not entirely congruent.
A case in point is the present war on the part of the two of them against the murderous regimes of Iran and its terrorist proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Houthis. It would appear that total unconditional surrender on the part of the former is in Jerusalem’s best interest, while lesser goals regarding nuclear weapons and Hormuz might well be the desiderata of Washington, D.C., at least under the present administration.
So, stipulate, arguendo, that the U.S. military achieves its more limited goals and retires from the battleground. Should Israel, as they say, “go it alone?”
It is difficult to see why not. From a moral point of view, justice cries out for the entire elimination of the present regime. This middle-sized Satan has killed some 30,000 of its own people. It has been exporting terrorism for many years, not only to Israel, but to many of its Arab neighbors as well. Without a new government with an entirely different philosophy, nuclear armed or not, it still poses an existential threat to Eretz Yisroel.
AMERICA’S RESTRAINT IS IRAN’S BEST ALLY
What about from a practical perspective? Is Israel too weak to continue to confront its numerous enemies? This is a difficult case to make. Was Israel too weak to “go it alone” in 1948, vis-à-vis the five invading armies of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia? Not at all. At that point, the Israeli military, as such, hardly even existed. A great part of the defense was conducted by Irgun (Etzel), Stern (Lehi), Haganah, and Palmach groups. Surely, the Israeli military of 2026, compared to its present enemies, is in a far better condition to confront them than were Israeli forces, such as they were, during their birth, some 78 years ago.
Moreover, the U.S. is in no position to do anything like forbid Israel from pursuing its own defense. That, surely, is no part of any U.S. best interest, no matter how widely construed. In addition, it by no means logically follows that if the U.S. pulls out of the Middle East, Israel will be entirely without any allies at all. During the recent fracas, Iran has been unwise enough, from its own evil point of view, to gratuitously attack the following: Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Qatar, Syria, and Oman. Not all will become allies, but some might do exactly that. Israel by no means needs their help, but it cannot be denied that this would certainly be welcomed by all who support elemental justice, and not only the safety of Israel, but its very existence.
Walter E. Block, Ph.D., is the Harold E. Wirth eminent scholar endowed chairman and professor of economics at Loyola University New Orleans.