The war in Iran and American interest

written by Ruth Pines-Feldman | 10.03.2026

In the face of domestic criticism of the war in Iran, President Donald Trump and his top officials repeatedly emphasize the broader American interest: reinforcing the United States’ uncontested status as a global power – a state with the strongest military in the world, cap-able of conducting multi-theater operations simultaneously and shaping the international agenda.

In a series of interviews and press conferences over the past two days, Trump defined the broad international American interest in the war against Iran, as being the removal of direct threats posed by the Iranian regime to the United States, Europe, Israel, and the Gulf states. This includes protecting American bases and troops across the region, as well as safeguarding international shipping routes.

From Washington’s perspective, the war against Iran marks a turning point in its relations with its allies in the Middle East. Only a year ago, Trump was still pursuing diplomatic initiatives aimed at countering China’s growing influence in the region. During visits to moderate Sunni states, and amid growing concerns over their potential drift toward rival geopolitical blocs, agreements were signed to expand cooperation in science, trade, and technology.

Now the Trump administration is signaling the next phase of this policy: providing a protective strategic umbrella through American military capabilities while ensuring the security of its regional partners.

This policy is reflected in military support, operational cooperation, assistance in air defense, the escorting of oil tankers, and a determined effort to confront Iran’s nuclear program – as well as its ambition to establish itself as the dominant power in the Middle East.

In the case of Israel, cooperation reflects a concept of capability-based partnership. This approach distinguishes between countries that receive American protection and those considered strategic security partners. Within the administration, officials emphasize Israel’s significant role in the conflict and its strategic value as a “capable partner” – a state able not only to defend itself but also to contribute meaningfully to regional operations. According to administration officials, Israel’s military and technological capabilities allow the United States to operate in the region more effectively.

This dynamic has taken on additional significance considering tensions with the United Kingdom – one of Washington’s most important security allies – and Trump’s sharp criticism of London after it signaled willingness to join the campaign only at a later stage.

In Trump’s view, creating and maintaining an international order in which the United States remains the central power is a core national interest. The campaign in the Middle East therefore carries global implications. From Washington’s perspective, demonstrating military strength in the region is intended to show that the United States continues to shape the international order at a time of growing great-power competition.

The display of military capability sends a signal to Russia that it should reassess both its war in Ukraine and its global strategic balance. At the same time, Trump has stressed to ward China that American policy also takes Beijing’s economic interests into account – particularly by ensuring the safe passage of oil shipments. Since the war in Ukraine began, Iran has become one of China’s major oil suppliers, making stable maritime routes a shared interest.

For Trump, this also represents an additional strategic advantage: a strong American presence in the Middle East limits China’s ability to expand its influence across the region.

One of the central challenges facing Trump is conducting an international military campaign while also managing domestic political pressures in the United States. The president is seeking to demonstrate that the war does not come at the expense of addressing internal challenges.

Within this framework, the administration has taken steps intended to signal that the domestic agenda continues alongside the war effort. Significant political decisions have been made on internal issues, including changes within the administration surrounding immigration policy. As part of this effort, Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem was fired following intense criticism in recent weeks. Political commentators in the US view such moves as an attempt to maintain domestic political support during wartime.

A historical lesson often referenced in this context concerns the decline in public support for president George W. Bush in the early 2000s, when the war in Iraq was accompanied by growing public criticism. Much of that criticism focused on the perception that the administration had neglected domestic issues while becoming deeply entangled in the Middle East without a clear political end-state. The Trump administration appears determined to avoid a similar trajectory.

Alongside the campaign in the Middle East, the United States is emphasizing that it remains active in other theaters as well. The US Department of War is currently holding regional meetings with countries from Latin America and the Caribbean to address issues of regional security and the fight against drug cartels.

This policy draws on the strategic tradition of the Monroe Doctrine, which holds that the United States bears primary responsibility for stability within its “backyard” – the Western Hemisphere.

Within this framework, Trump has previously pursued policy pressure toward Venezuela and is currently applying diplomatic pressure on Cuba.

Ultimately, the war in Iran reflects a broader American effort to signal to both allies and rivals that the United States has returned to a model of active global leadership – one capable of operating across multiple theaters simultaneously and of shaping regional security orders.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, March  17, 2026.

*The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.



Trump’s Board of Peace collides with the reality of Hamas’s power in Gaza

written by Prof. Kobi Michael | 10.03.2026
US President Donald Trump on Thursday convened the Board of Peace in Washington for a significant kick-off meeting on his 20-point plan for Gaza.

As usual, Trump glorified the board and some of its members and participants and did not spare himself from self-aggrandizement and some exaggerated declarations about the peace agreements he had achieved in extremely short periods of time. He then referred to Gaza, stating that the war was over, except for a few small flames here and there.

The president also praised his team for helping to implement his plan and expressed confidence regarding dismantling Hamas, noting that the terror organization has pledged to disarm but will be disarmed by force if it does not do so voluntarily and peacefully.

Although the US president pledged $10 billion to the board’s budget and program, managed to mobilize several world leaders to support it and even join as members, and secured commitments from five countries to inject money into the board’s coffers and to send troops to the International Stabilization Force (ISF), the gap between these lofty declarations and the practical reality on the ground in Gaza is no less embarrassing.

If this gap is not closed, or at least reduced, Gaza’s residents will sink into a continuing reality of a life of hardship in a devastated region devoid of vitality and future. Israel will face a complex security challenge, which may escalate and spill over into other arenas. Regional security stability may be undermined, with further and dangerous erosion in relations between Israel, Egypt, and Jordan.

The essence of the gap between the vision, the festive atmosphere, the lofty declarations, and the reality on the ground stems from Hamas’s demonstrable and declared refusal to disarm.

It has denied its previous promises to disarm, and the group’s leaders have publicly reaffirmed their intention to retain weapons and continue the armed struggle against Israel until the end of the “occupation,” with some statements not necessarily clarifying the nature of the “occupation.”

Beyond that, Hamas is working vigorously to restore its military and governmental capabilities, including governors, ministers, and other officials, who, in its view, should be integrated into the new technocratic governmental system.

It demands the integration of 10,000 security personnel from its apparatuses into the new security system that will be established and operated by the technocratic government and has even vetoed the entry of Sami Nasman, the prospective internal security minister, into Gaza, essentially forcing him to operate outside the enclave.

In the reality that is emerging and concretizing with each passing day, Hamas is preparing the infrastructure for the “day after,” creating mechanisms to influence the functioning of the technocratic government.

In fact, it is perfecting Hezbollah’s model in Lebanon: a terrorist organization that dictates the agenda and the scope of action of the civilian government by force.

Hamas’s control of all state institutions and the fact that the technocratic government will not be able to import teachers from India, engineers from Kazakhstan, doctors from Indonesia, and professionals from other countries, means the Gazan workforce – employed by Hamas, identified with the organization, and committed to or fearful of it – will not go against the terror group, even on the day its salary is paid by the technocratic government.

As long as Hamas is not disarmed and ceases to be an effective and present governing entity in Gaza, the technocratic government has no real chance of establishing alternative governance to Hamas and preparing the conditions for the beginning of the process of rebuilding the Strip.

The same is also true of the ISF, which has not yet been established.
Five countries have already announced their willingness to send soldiers to the task force, and Egypt, Jordan, and even European countries such as Italy have announced their willingness to train Palestinians who intend to serve in the security apparatuses in Gaza. An online tender for recruiting people for the new security apparatuses has even been published.

Yet, there is not a single military force that is ready and capable of dealing with Hamas and disarming it and demilitarizing the enclave. There is not a single country or government that is ready to send its soldiers to fight Hamas. And since the terror group is not ready to disarm voluntarily or by virtue of cooperation with the 20-point plan, this is nothing more than an embarrassing show.

The only chance of narrowing the gap between the launch and establishment of the Board of Peace and the beginning of a process of reconstruction and real change in Gaza is by disarming Hamas and dismantling it as a political/governmental force and by demilitarizing the enclave.

It would be better if President Trump were to succeed in leading Turkey, Qatar, and Egypt to force the move on Hamas, but the chance of that is almost nonexistent. These three countries, certainly Turkey and Qatar, cannot realize such a goal.

The other option is to order the IDF to complete the mission, which should have been completed long ago and which was also defined by the Israeli government as a war goal. Under current conditions, this is a completely possible mission due to Hamas’s relative weakness compared to its situation a year or two ago and due to the lack of hostages in the field, which greatly limited the IDF’s maneuverability.

President Trump will be able to reach this decision only after exhausting all other options and becoming convinced that there is no chance of implementing his own plan without dismantling Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza and that only the IDF can do this job.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, February 22, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



How Trump turned insults into tools of US diplomacy

written by Prof. Kobi Michael | 10.03.2026

Modern Western diplomacy has traditionally emphasized restraint, indirection, and the careful management of language. Diplomatic practice favored criticism of policies rather than personalities, avoidance of overt humiliation, and the cultivation of influence through legitimacy and attraction—what is commonly termed “soft power.” Even in periods of acute disagreement, leaders generally sought to preserve decorum, recognizing that respect and predictability help sustain alliances and international stability. Political correctness and legalistic discourse in recent decades further reinforced these conventions.

Critics have long argued that excessive caution may weaken deterrence or obscure strategic “red lines.” Yet even these critics rarely advocated abandoning civility altogether. The diplomatic style associated with President Donald Trump represents a far more radical rupture with these norms, replacing restraint with confrontation and calculated disrespect.

Historically, humiliation has often served as a political instrument. Ancient empires publicly degraded defeated enemies; sacred objects were seized, rulers paraded in chains, and ceremonies staged to symbolize submission. Modern history also contains examples of symbolic degradation designed to assert dominance. Yet these practices were usually reserved for wartime or its aftermath. Trump’s innovation lies in integrating humiliation into routine peacetime diplomacy.

From the outset of his presidency, Trump adopted a public style characterized by blunt language, personal insults, exaggerations, and threats. Adversaries were labeled with derisive nicknames—”Rocket Man” for Kim Jong-un, for example—while entire regions were disparaged in coarse terms. More strikingly, such rhetoric was not confined to rivals. Allies were treated similarly. European leaders were publicly belittled for alleged weakness or dependence on the United States. NATO partners were accused of “free-riding,” and long-standing security commitments were described as unfair burdens rather than shared responsibilities.

His treatment of France’s president Emmanuel Macron illustrates this pattern. Trump repeatedly mocked Macron’s domestic political difficulties, minimized France’s military contributions, and implied that Paris depended entirely on American protection. At public events and on social media, he portrayed Macron not as a partner but as a subordinate. Comparable behavior was directed at Germany’s Angela Merkel, Canada’s Justin Trudeau, and other democratic leaders, often through personal jabs that blurred the line between diplomatic negotiation and public shaming. Such conduct signaled that even close allies were subject to coercive pressure and symbolic degradation.

This rhetorical strategy frequently relied on questionable or inflated claims. A notable example concerns Israel’s Iron Dome missile defense system. Trump asserted that the system was essentially based on American technology and implied primary U.S. ownership of the achievement, despite the broad recognition that Iron Dome represents a distinctly Israeli innovation developed by Israel’s defense industries, albeit with important American financial support. The statement reflected a broader tendency to appropriate allies’ successes in order to reinforce narratives of American primacy.

Trump’s speeches, including high-profile international forums, often amplified this approach. Instead of coded diplomatic language, he employed ridicule and intimidation to project dominance. These choices appear deliberate rather than impulsive. They form part of a coherent worldview that challenges the post-1945 liberal order. In this conception, international politics is hierarchical and transactional: legitimacy derives from power, not norms; alliances are conditional bargains; and respect is extracted through pressure rather than earned through cooperation.

Trump’s diplomatic style therefore represents more than unconventional behavior or rhetorical excess. It reflects an attempt to normalize insult, humiliation, and coercion as legitimate tools of statecraft. Whether such tactics strengthen deterrence or instead erode trust, weaken alliances, and accelerate fragmentation of the international order remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that this approach marks a substantive transformation in the language and practice of contemporary diplomacy.

Published in  Israel Hayom, February 05, 2026.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



Israel can ease tensions with Qatar, but only if Doha stops supporting Hamas

written by Noa Lazimi | 10.03.2026
A trilateral meeting of the United States, Israel, and Qatar was held Sunday as part of an American initiative to jumpstart a process aimed at easing tensions between Doha and Jerusalem, against the backdrop of efforts to advance Phase B of President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza. The meeting was attended by US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff, Mossad director David Barnea, and a senior Qatari official.

Following Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s apology in September, Qatar is seeking to solidify its image as a constructive mediator and launder its reputation despite its ongoing support for terrorism. This comes amid statements from Doha declaring that “Qatar will not take part in funding the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip,” arguing that “we will not sign the checks that rebuild what someone else destroyed.”Beyond strengthening their already elevated international standing – bolstered significantly by their central role in Trump’s “points plan” – the Qataris are keen to further tighten their ties with Washington, which grants them extensive security benefits, including a defense agreement anchored in a presidential order.

Improving relations with Qatar

If the process of rapprochement progresses and such meetings continue, Israel must make it clear that any advancement depends on concrete steps from Doha. Every move toward improved relations with Qatar must be conditioned on the cessation of all support for Hamas – direct or indirect – and on a complete halt to any promotion of interests aligned with the organization’s goals. Only under these terms can Israel ensure that any emerging diplomatic dynamic serves its strategic interests rather than granting further legitimacy to actions that endanger it and destabilize the region.

It is important to recognize that behind the scenes, Qatar – together with Turkey – continues to shape developments in the Gaza arena. The close ties maintained by Doha and Ankara with Hamas serve their own strategic interests, granting them channels of influence and leverage.Israel should be concerned by attempts from both countries to engineer mechanisms that would hollow out the very idea of disarming Hamas, as reflected in several recently published initiatives, including proposals to store the organization’s weapons rather than dismantle them.

Taking action against terrorism

Under current conditions, Israel should seize the momentum created by ongoing legal efforts in the US to outlaw the Muslim Brotherhood – currently limited to Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt – and work with Washington to extend such designations to the organization’s branches in Qatar and Turkey.

In addition, the United States could require the Qatari government to take legal action against entities operating on its soil that are involved in funding organizations already designated by the US as terrorist groups. Qatar must also commit to ending anti-Israel propaganda on its Al Jazeera media network and cease providing a safe haven to senior Hamas operatives who continue to reside there.
Regarding Gaza, Israel should work to curb Qatar’s attempts to expand its footprint in the Gaza Strip under the guise of humanitarian projects, which risk functioning as a civilian façade for Hamas’s governing mechanisms. Furthermore, Jerusalem should firmly oppose any “soft” model – promoted by Doha and Ankara – of disabling or placing out of use (decommissioning) Hamas weaponry, such as transferring arms to the Palestinian Authority or storing them under supervision.
Instead, Israel must insist on the complete and total dismantling of Hamas’s military capabilities (disarmament). In close coordination with the United States, Israel must make clear to Qatar and Turkey that it will not permit any arrangement – direct or indirect – that enables Hamas to remain standing.Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 10, 2025.



Why Kazakhstan joined the Abraham Accords despite longstanding Israel ties

written by Joseph Rozen | 10.03.2026
When US President Donald Trump announced recently that Kazakhstan, the largest and most influential country in Central Asia, was joining the Abraham Accords, some were quick to welcome the development, pointing to the many benefits of establishing relations between Israel and Kazakhstan, emphasizing the rapprochement of a large Muslim nation with Israel.
However, there’s one small problem – Israel and Kazakhstan have already maintained full diplomatic relations since 1992.

Moreover, relations between Israel and Kazakhstan are warm and diverse – though still far from realizing the enormous potential that exists between the two countries. Kazakhstan is Israel’s senior partner in the Central Asian region, with ties spanning energy, security, economics, healthcare, agriculture, and more.

Condemning Hamas

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Kazakhstan in December 2016 (I prepared the agenda for that historic visit in my role at the National Security Council) and breathed new life into bilateral relations, which also led to Israeli participation in the Expo held in Astana in 2017.

Unfortunately, this momentum in relations did not translate into extensive business activity, and the volume of trade between the countries remained low at around $200 million. At the same time, Kazakhstan is a major supplier of oil and wheat to Israel, and over the years has purchased various defense technologies from Israel.

Following October 7, Kazakhstan was the only country in Central Asia to condemn the Hamas attacks and call for the release of all hostages. Conversely, it provided aid to Palestinians worth $1 million and even saw some pro-Palestinian demonstrations on its territory. Although Kazakhstan’s secular character, a legacy of its Soviet heritage, managed to prevent the rise of extremist Islamist elements in the country, the model of its moderate Islam is enduring.

If things were so bright, what led to this surprising move by Trump’s administration?

Several months ago, US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and his team announced their intention to expand the Abraham Accords. Alongside natural candidates like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, they also mentioned Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Kazakhstan. All three of the latter countries have good relations with Israel, and one of them – Armenia – isn’t even a Muslim country, making its inclusion in the Abraham Accords puzzling, to say the least.

Foreign interests

There’s a simple explanation for this move, and it has nothing to do with Israel. Trump is leveraging US foreign policy to serve the MAGA (Make America Great Again) idea and benefit American companies, while competing with Russia and China.

Trump recognizes the enormous economic potential in Central Asia, particularly in Kazakhstan, and decided, given that it’s a Muslim republic, to leverage the Abraham Accords to expand American influence in a region traditionally under greater influence from Russia and China.

Similarly, the US brokered an agreement between Azerbaijan and Armenia that will benefit American companies in operating the Zangezur Corridor – the proposed transportation route connecting Azerbaijan to its exclave, Nakhchivan, without passing through Iran – and reduce Russian and Iranian influence in the Caucasus region.

In the case of Kazakhstan, the geopolitical circumstances favored the American move, as Astana was already making efforts to draw closer to the West to balance the broad Chinese and Russian influence.

Moreover, deepening relations with Kazakhstan opens the door for closer US ties with other Central Asian republics.

Trade relations

Indeed, the announcement of joining the Abraham Accords was made during a summit of Central Asian leaders with Trump at the White House. The summit was designed to expand US trade relations with the Central Asian region, focusing on minerals critical to key industries such as electronics, automotive, and aviation.

The Kazakh economy is still largely based on exporting raw materials like oil and metals. As of 2023, Kazakhstan exported critical minerals worth $3 billion to China, nearly $2 billion to Russia, and only about $500 million in mineral exports to the US. Trump is working to change this, such as reforming outdated legislation in Central Asian countries to facilitate mutual investments and American business activity in the region.

During the summit, several significant deals worth billions of dollars were signed in mining, aviation (Boeing), agriculture, and finance – and even Elon Musk’s Starlink company signed a major deal with Kazakhstan.

Creating momentum

The bottom line is that this is a very positive step for the US, certainly in the context of competition with China and Russia – one that also benefits American industry but doesn’t dramatically impact Israel.

Conversely, using the Abraham Accords framework to promote bilateral business activity with countries that already maintain relations with Israel could end up harming the value of this unique framework.

To be clear, Kazakhstan is an important country, and the American rapprochement with it and Central Asia should be welcomed, but this could have been advanced without using the Abraham Accords.

At the same time, US rapprochement with Kazakhstan and the entire Central Asian region may give renewed momentum to these countries’ relations with Israel as well, in a way that reflects the region’s long-standing friendship with Israel and the Jewish people.

Furthermore, against this backdrop, one can hope that the momentum will continue with countries worthy of inclusion in the Abraham Accords, such as Saudi Arabia and Indonesia.

Published in The Jerusalem Post, December 2, 2025.

The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the speakers’ alone.



This is what ‘globalize the intifada’ looks like

written by Arsen Ostrovsky | 10.03.2026
On Wednesday night, the unthinkable happened on American soil: two young Israeli diplomats, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, were brutally gunned down in a targeted, antisemitic attack outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C., by a perpetrator who shouted “free Palestine,” as he was being arrested.
Lischinsky had just bought an engagement ring, and was planning to propose to Milgrim on a trip to Jerusalem next week, their love cut so mercilessly short.

The brutal reality is that such an act of utter violence was the logical and horrific consequence of a relentless campaign of demonization, disinformation and delegitimization against the Jewish state — led not by fringe extremists alone, but by western governments and institutions.

Although the blood of these two young diplomats is first and foremost on the hands of their killer, responsibility is also shared by every government that has, in recent months, legitimized hatred against Israel under the guise of international law, diplomacy and human rights.
In recent weeks, we have seen an avalanche of false moral equivalence and political duplicity from the very countries that purport to uphold freedom and justice, and make a show of their supposedly unwavering commitment to combating the scourge of Jew-hatred.

The United Kingdom, for example, once a stalwart ally of Israel, has disgracefully suspended free trade negotiations, imposed sanctions on some Israelis and summoned Israel’s ambassador for a public dressing-down over Gaza, which it has called “intolerable” and “monstrous.”

France has followed suit, embracing punitive rhetoric, while doing little to pressure Hamas to release the hostages and calling for immediate recognition of a Palestinian state.

Canada, under new leadership, has shown alarming signs of softening its support for Israel, while, like the U.K. and France, increasingly parroting Hamas talking points on Gaza and ignoring the grotesque reality of Hamas’s tactics — including embedding weapons in schools, hospitals and civilian homes, and using its own people as human shields in its war of annihilation against the Jewish state.

Earlier this week, each of these three countries were immediately applauded by Hamas, upon announcing an unprecedented joint condemnation of Israel and threats of further sanctions against the Jewish state, if it does not acquiesce to their demands over aid that continues to be systematically diverted and weaponized by Hamas.

This relentless campaign to isolate, sanction and vilify Israel does not occur in a vacuum. It clearly sends a message. A message that Israeli lives are worth less, that Jewish self-defence is unacceptable and that terrorism against Israelis may not only be tolerated, but tacitly justified.
And this message is being received loud and clear — by violent extremists on the streets of London, Paris, Montreal and now Washington, D.C., by radicalized students chanting genocidal slogans to “free Palestine” and to “globalize the intifada” on western campuses, and yes, by the killer who walked up to Israeli diplomats in Washington and ended their lives in cold blood.
Perhaps when the murderer from Washington and the jihadists from Gaza are shouting the same slogans as leaders from Europe and Canada, it might be time to rethink your policy?
What began in the halls of the United Nations, with its endless stream of one-sided resolutions condemning Israel, and the media, which has echoed one blood libel after another, has now metastasized into the language of western foreign ministries and international courts. The result is the normalization and mainstreaming of antisemitism and incitement, under the guise of diplomacy. And now, the consequences are being paid in blood.

This is certainly not the first time that the dehumanization of Jews has led to violence. But it is perhaps the first time in recent memory that it has been so directly aided and abetted by Israel’s supposed allies.
If the international community truly wishes to honour these two murder victims, it must begin by taking a long, hard look in the mirror.
It must start by ending the incessant double standards and opprobrium applied only to Israel — the sole democracy in the Middle East and the only state expected to fight a war against genocidal terrorists with one hand tied behind its back.
It must include a full-throated condemnation not just of the act of murder, but of the poisonous rhetoric and policy decisions that led to it.
This tragedy should be a wake-up call to every western leader. Appeasement of terror and appeasement of those who hate Israel does not bring peace. It brings more violence, more extremism and more death.
Because if your silence continues, if your condemnation remains reserved for Israel alone, then Wednesday night’s tragedy will sadly not be the last.Published in National Post, May 24, 2025.


Trump’s swashbuckling regional diplomacy offers opportunities

written by David M. Weinberg | 10.03.2026

More than any other country, Israel was hit this week by Trumpian whiplash; by the checkbook diplomacy conducted in blitzkrieg fashion by US President Donald Trump in the Middle East.

There was something unseemly about the extravagance and opulence that marked Trump’s visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE. There was something childish in President Trump’s enthusiasm for the glitzy gifts and sycophantic love that Arab rulers heaped on.

There was something unnerving in his chummy acceptance of mega-cash and a jumbo jet from the Hamas-supporting, Al-Jazeera-bankrolling Emir of Qatar. There was something unruly in the way he enthusiastically embraced Syria’s new president, Ahmed al-Sharaa (AlJolani), a former al-Qaida commander, complete with quite cavalier sanctions relief for Damascus.

And there was something smarmy about Trump’s assertion that America would use all these ties for Israel’s benefit.

Politicos and journalists fretted all week that Trump’s turbo-charged trillion-dollar dealmaking with oil-rich Gulf nations put Israel at diplomatic disadvantage. They asserted that Israel was being left out or left behind in Trump’s wheeling and dealing.

The uneasy feeling is compounded by other moves Trump has taken in recent weeks which might suggest distance between Washington and Jerusalem. This includes the lightening announcement of direct nuclear talks between Washington and Tehran, and the concomitant flood of statements suggesting that the US would settle for drawdown, not full dismantlement, of Iran’s nuclear and missile military juggernaut.

There was the abrupt Trump decision to call-off the American military campaign against the Houthis in exchange for a Yemeni pledge not to anymore attack US ships; a pledge to ceasefire that clearly does not include Israel.

And then there was Steve Witkoff and Adam Boehler’s negotiation with Hamas to release American-Israeli hostage Edan Alexander. The release is a blessed thing, but the impression that this was done over Israel’s head and at the expense of hostages who are “only” or “just” Israeli – is problematic.

And all-of-a-sudden everybody in the world is talking about rehabilitating Syria and investing in Gaza without a dime of consideration for devastated southern or northern Israel.

In short, it is hard to escape the sinking feeling that Israel just has not been invited to Trump’s party.

BUT THIS is a wrong and ruinous misreading of the strategic picture. Israel still has an indispensable and prominent place in the wild and wooly Mideast of Donald Trump. Trump already has and surely will yet support moves that are critical to Israel’s security and prosperity.

A more positive reconsideration of the strategic picture starts with recognition that Trump’s visit was mainly about business deals to boost American fortunes, stemming from his urgent need to demonstrate economic achievements. This explains his enthusiasm for the insanely rich Gulfies. It does not mean dismissal of Israel.

It is true Israel does not have shiny toys or trillion-dollar business ventures with which to boost Trump, but it has other demonstrable and no-less-valuable advantages to America.

Trump surely understands that without Israel’s decapitation of Hezbollah, the Assad regime in Syria (backed by Iran and Russia) would not have fallen. Trump surely understands that without Israel’s destruction of Iran’s air defense system the ayatollahs would not have been willing to even talk to him. Tenacious Israeli victories paved the way for Trump to cash-in.

Trump surely also understands that Israel’s (still incomplete) evisceration of Hamas and other terrorist groups of Moslem Brotherhood ilk in Judea and Samaria too – evidence the horrible terrorist murder this week of Tzeela Gez – is critical to Saudi and Emirati security and to broad regional stability.

Without this there will be no better future for Palestinians, and the Saudis will have less reason to respect and partner with Israel. Thus, Trump unapologetically has massively resupplied Israel with weapons and backed dramatic plans to depopulate Gaza of the bad guys.

So, while Israel may have seemed absent from Trump’s swing through the region, it was not. In fact, President Trump promoted the Abraham Accords, demanded condemnation of the Hamas invasion of Israel at every step of the way (right in the face of Qatari and Syrian leaders), and talked toughly about Iran.

Equally important, Trump did not plaint about “Palestine” and the two-state delusion; did not moan about Israeli military operations in Rafah, Jenin, the Bekaa Valley (Lebanon), and Derra Province (Syria) – unlike the blessedly passe Biden-Harris team; and did not wail about gas for Gazans and outrageously threaten Israel with economic sanctions – unlike French President Emmanuel Macron.

Throughout, Trump emphasized peace through strength. The message was clear. Trump’s America is seeking sovereign partners who carry their own weight and increase America’s safety, strength, and prosperity across the globe.

This presents excellent opportunities for Israel. This country holds great regional strategic advantage and military strength. If it seizes the moment to act decisively in its own interests – which clearly are America’s interests too, in the main – it will garner Trump’s support. This is particularly true regarding Gaza and Iran.

However, if Israel hesitates or wilts, Trump will lose interest or patience or both. And then he may go off in his own capricious directions, over Israel’s head and without due consideration of Israel’s perspective.

Again, Trump has not abandoned Israel; he is daring Israel to act daringly. He wants Israel to be the regional hegemon that it must be.

In other words, object not to Trump’s swashbuckling regional diplomacy. Complain, if you will, about Israeli procrastination and irresolution. The ball is in Israel’s court, and Trump is waiting for Jerusalem to serve with full force.

SO WHY isn’t this assessment widely heard? Because the political opposition to Prime Minister Netanyahu and the mainstream media which slavishly serves it drive a false, nasty narrative of Israeli malfeasance; that Jerusalem has wrecked relations with Washington, and that Netanyahu has fallen out of Trump’s good graces.

Pundits and politicians gleefully pattered-on all week about Israel being downgraded. They could barely disguise their schadenfreude at Netanyahu’s supposed sidelining. They purposefully misconstrued Trump’s diplomacy to pile on Bibi yet again.

Don’t believe it. Instead, demand that the Government of Israel act expeditiously to take advantage of the strategic windows of opportunity that President Trump holds open for Israel and the region.

Published in The Jerusalem Post 16.05.2025.



With Trump, there is an historic opportunity in Gaza

written by Gilad Erdan | 10.03.2026

President Donald Trump has declared his intention to end the wars in the Middle East. However, in his meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the two leaders will have to address the ticking time bomb that remains in Gaza under the rule of the Hamas. The challenge: preventing Gaza from once again becoming a terrorist base that will spark the next war.

Trump has already proven he is willing to shatter past norms and embrace innovative solutions. This time, Netanyahu must also bring fresh “out-of-the-box” ideas to the table.

Israel must look reality in the eye: Even after the recent ceasefire agreement, Hamas still has approximately 20,000 fighters and dozens of miles of tunnels in Gaza. The terrorist organization is already working to rebuild its capabilities and train a new generation of terrorists. Therefore, Netanyahu must make it clear to Trump that rebuilding Gaza equates to rebuilding Hamas. Any reconstruction of the Strip must be limited to the bare minimum.

The danger is immediate. Make no mistake – every mechanism established to monitor materials entering Gaza has failed in the past and will fail again in preventing Hamas from using them to restore its military capabilities.

Israel and the US must send a clear message to the Arab world: As long as Hamas controls Gaza, another war is only a matter of time, and any investment in reconstruction will be wasted, just as it has been in the past.

During his conversation with Trump, Netanyahu must also warn against the illusion of a “technocratic government” in Gaza. As seen with the so-called “Gaza Health Ministry” and the UNRWA agency, no professional body can exist in Gaza without being controlled by terrorists. As long as Hamas remains the dominant armed force in the Strip, it will ultimately control any civilian authority established there.

The Palestinian Authority (PA) cannot be the solution either. Not only does the PA continue to pay salaries to terrorists and fail to prevent attacks from its territory, but it is also clear that just as Hamas expelled the PA from Gaza in 2007, the same would happen again if the PA were entrusted with security responsibilities in the Strip.

Trump must be told that there may be no choice but to establish a temporary Israeli military-civil administration in Gaza. No other entity aside from Israel will be willing to fight Hamas over the long term. Only an Israeli military administration can dismantle Hamas’ armed control and lay the groundwork for a local civilian alternative that could gain strength in the future.

Preventing reconstruction will not only hinder Hamas’ ability to rebuild its military infrastructure, but it will also send a clear message to Gaza’s population that as long as Hamas remains in power and committed to terrorism, there is no future for the Strip. Additionally, it will signal to Islamist terrorist supporters, who were emboldened by Hamas’ recent hostage deal, that there is a heavy price to be paid for launching murderous attacks against Israel.

Breaking conventions

Trump’s proposal to incentivize and facilitate voluntary emigration from Gaza to third countries is not only revolutionary, it may be the only idea that could lead to sustainable stability and offer Gazans a better future.

Some may argue that encouraging Gaza’s residents to emigrate is unrealistic. But it is worth remembering that before the Abraham Accords were signed, “experts” such as then-US Secretary of State John Kerry insisted that peace agreements between Israel and Arab states were impossible without first establishing a Palestinian state.

Ultimately, when there is a determined President willing to break conventions and advance shared interests with regional states, the impossible becomes possible.

Regarding Iran, an equally pressing issue, it is necessary to reach an understanding with the US on restoring the maximum pressure campaign. This includes demanding that European nations activate the snapback mechanism to reinstate crippling sanctions on Tehran. However, this time, it is also crucial to persuade Trump to present an immediate military threat to the ayatollah regime.

Furthermore, Israel and the US must reach an agreement on joint measures to provide direct support to opposition forces in Iran working toward regime change.

By thinking outside the box and embracing new ideas, it will be possible in the coming years to bring about a historic transformation that will ensure Israel’s security for generations and stabilize the entire Middle East.

Published in  Israel Hayom, February 03, 2025.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**



Trump administration 2.0 demands new rules of engagement

written by Gilad Erdan | 10.03.2026

The inauguration of President Trump opens the door to a historic shift in the strategic alliance between Israel and the US, fortifying Israel’s national security and reshaping the Middle East.

To realize this potential, old paradigms must be abandoned. Israel must present groundbreaking ideas and initiatives. During my tenure as a minister, ambassador to the US, and envoy to the UN, I witnessed how the differing approaches of the Trump and Biden administrations impacted Israel’s security.

Trump’s willingness to break with convention led to transformative achievements, including the US Embassy’s relocation to Jerusalem, recognition of Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights, and the Abraham Accords. From Israel’s perspective, Trump’s “dream team” and his freedom from past constraints represent a historic opportunity that Israel must not squander.

However, we must also account for Trump’s deal-making mindset and his “America First” worldview. Any proposal presented to him will be evaluated through the lens of US interests.

An urgent strategic shift

First and foremost, we need an urgent shift in strategy toward the “head of the octopus”—Iran. Trump is expected to reinstate his “maximum pressure” campaign, but this time, economic pressure must be accompanied by a credible military threat from both the US and Israel, with the clear objective of overthrowing Tehran’s regime of tyranny.

Only regime change in Tehran will achieve Trump’s goals: ending regional wars, reducing US forces in the Middle East to redirect them to the Indo-Pacific, and expanding the Abraham Accords.

Regarding Gaza, Israel has decided to dismantle Hamas’s military and governing power but has yet to adopt a strategy to achieve this goal. Allowing Hamas to remain in power means another war is inevitable. We must adopt a new strategy, coordinated with the new US administration, which includes halting the transfer of food and fuel to Hamas, reoccupying and holding the territory until it is fully cleared, and possibly imposing Israeli military governance in Gaza temporarily until Hamas’s rule is dismantled.

The images of Gazans celebrating alongside Hamas murderers the release of terrorists highlight the need for a de-radicalization process, which can only occur after Hamas is crushed.

We now have a historic opportunity to replace the failed Oslo paradigm with new solutions for the future of Judea and Samaria, that do not include the disastrous notion of a Palestinian state. Hamas’s support after October 7, even in Judea and Samaria, compels us to clarify to the world that a Palestinian terror state cannot coexist with Israel. We must enlist President Trump in creative new solutions, such as the “Emirates Plan.”

It is worth noting that Trump has recently sought control over Greenland, owned by Denmark, due to its importance to US national security. Similarly, the importance of Judea and Samaria to Israel’s security, as well as our moral and historical right to sovereignty over this land, is exponentially greater. Trump’s return to the White House allows us to address not only the physical threats to Israel but also the attacks on its legitimacy and international standing.

Cutting UN funding

The International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague poses a threat to US soldiers and officials, just as it does to Israelis. The UN, which annually receives $19 billion in generous US funding, frequently promotes an agenda that is not only anti-Israel but also anti-American. As the leader who previously cut funding to UNRWA and withdrew the US from the biased Human Rights Council, Trump is uniquely positioned to cut US funding to the UN entirely, creating unprecedented pressure for reform in this corrupt institution.

We must work with Washington to drive significant change internationally by imposing sanctions on the ICC and promoting legislation that targets the BDS movement. Such legislation should deny US funding to universities that permit expressions of support for terrorist organizations and violent protests against Israel and Jewish students.

If we take courageous, unconventional steps with the Trump administration in the coming year and align ourselves with vital American interests, 2025 could mark a turning point in securing Israel’s long-term safety. It depends on us and the initiatives we present to the president.

Published in  Israel Hayom, January 20, 2025.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**



A historic chance to dismantle the ‘axis of evil’

written by Gilad Erdan | 10.03.2026

The fall of the Assad regime, combined with Israel’s decisive blows against Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis, presents a historic opportunity. With a bold US president open to innovative initiatives, there is now a chance to fundamentally alter the Middle East. By dismantling the Iranian regime, this moment could pave the way for normalization between Israel and the broader Arab and Muslim world.

The key to achieving this transformative change lies in demonstrating strength against surrounding enemies, proving Israel’s strategic value to the United States, building a coalition of moderate states, and setting a clear national goal: applying all possible pressure – including a credible military threat – to overthrow the Iranian regime, ultimately consigning it to history alongside Assad’s regime.

President Donald Trump enters the White House committed to ending wars, not starting them. However, he is also prepared to strengthen US allies in the Middle East – foremost among them, Israel – so they can defend themselves. American support will weaken the Iranian-Chinese-Russian axis, fostering sustainable stability and expanding the Abraham Accords.

Trump’s recent statements about the Middle East reflect his principles: distinguishing between allies and adversaries, valuing nations that achieve victories and weaken their enemies, and rejecting endless wars with heavy casualties on both sides.

Israel must act decisively to achieve its objectives against its adversaries as swiftly as possible. In Gaza, Israel needs to dismantle Hamas as a military and governing force, ensuring that humanitarian aid entering the Strip does not fall under its control. Simultaneously, any violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah should carry a heavy price.

Israel must also demonstrate its strategic value to the US, aligning with Trump’s “America First” agenda. This can be achieved through close cooperation with Washington to advance new regional military and economic frameworks alongside Abraham Accords states and other regional partners, creating a counterweight to China’s expanding influence in the Middle East.

Israel must operate from a position of strength, courage, and uncompromising dedication to its vital interests. Analysts urging Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians in exchange for US support in normalization agreements risk portraying Israel as weak – a liability, not an asset, to Washington.

Reshaping the Middle East requires addressing the regime in Tehran. Israel must adopt this as a bipartisan national objective. Just as Western intelligence agencies failed to predict developments in Egypt, Syria, and Gaza, they may similarly overlook Iran’s next steps. One day, the world could wake up to an Iran armed with nuclear warheads. As an ambassador to the US and UN, I engaged with representatives from regional states, including those lacking diplomatic ties with Israel, and they all recognized that Iran is the root of the problem.

Today, with Assad’s fall, Iran is weaker than ever. Three of its pillars – Assad’s regime, Hezbollah, and Hamas – have been crippled, and the Houthis have also suffered significant setbacks. Israel has demonstrated its ability to strike Iran’s strategic assets, leaving it exposed to further aerial attacks.

Now is the time to complete the task, with US support. This involves launching a maximum-pressure campaign – economically and diplomatically – against Iran. Sanctions must target critical sectors, including energy, finance, defense, and automotive industries. Simultaneously, support for Iranian opposition groups should be bolstered, ensuring their access to encrypted communication and uninterrupted internet connectivity.

If this pressure does not bring about dramatic change or regime collapse, Israel must convince its ally that the only path to stability, peace, and prosperity in the region lies in delivering a devastating blow to the Iranian regime. Jerusalem and Washington would need to target a range of sites across Iran, from nuclear facilities to strategic government and military assets, and economic hubs such as oil facilities and ports.

Beyond Iran, it is essential to address other actors supporting radical terror and spreading hatred and antisemitism, starting with Qatar. It is unacceptable for the US to condemn Hamas for holding American citizens hostage while the same organization operates its financial empire from Doha, a US-designated ally. Nor can Qatar’s media outlets continue spreading venomous anti-Israel propaganda while Trump works to strengthen the Abraham Accords.

Efforts should target government, private sector, and civil society leaders to compel Qatar to make a clear choice: end all support for terror and incitement, expel Hamas operatives, and cease aiding the organization, or face designation as a terror-supporting state and sanctions isolating it from the global community.

To ensure a bright future for Israel, citizens and the Jewish diaspora must unite around one transformative goal: the fall of Iran’s regime. This moment is closer than ever.

Published in  Israel Hayom, December 10, 2024.

**The opinions expressed in Misgav publications are the authors’ alone.**