The special interview that Donald Trump gave Israel Hayom last week sheds new light on how the 45th President of the United States operates just nine months before he may be sworn into office again.
First, contrary to conventional wisdom, according to which Trump is driven almost exclusively by momentary whims in his decisions, the former (and perhaps future) president comes off throughout the interview as a sophisticated politician with an orderly worldview. True, Trump repeatedly lashes out at his great nemesis, Joe Biden, in offensive and insulting language, but not a few US presidents – including Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon – adopted a blunt, disdainful, and defamatory style in addressing political rivals at home and abroad (although they did so mainly – but not only – in closed discussions).
Frustration and disappointment
Key tenets of Trump's formulated worldview flow directly into the front line of the war in Gaza and his positions regarding Israel's prosecution of the war. Even though he is in the midst of the race for the White House, he does not attempt to maintain political correctness in his reference to Israel and the "special relations". While touting the long list of accomplishments he delivered for Israel during his four years in office and his deep support for it, the rhetoric he employed toward it appeared to be businesslike. He also does not bother to directly condemn Hamas for its horrific actions.
Unlike the deep empathy Biden showed toward Israel at the outset of the war (which was accompanied by a massive airlift and a display of American power in the arena), Trump remained seemingly detached in the face of the shocking trauma that befell his close ally on October 7.
At the same time, as a leader particularly sensitive to how he and his policies are perceived by the public, Trump does not even try to hide his frustration and disappointment with the way, utterly mistaken in his opinion, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to publicly cast the campaign. Instead of acting efficiently, quickly, and cunningly to bring the fighting to an end as soon as possible before the world's goodwill toward the ally that was attacked so barbarically is eroded, Netanyahu chose the opposite path, which became a central source of Trump's criticism in the interview (although he refrained, at least in this interview, from a direct and personal attack on the prime minister).
Specifically, to prove to the Israeli public his declared determination to crush and defeat Hamas, the prime minister does not hesitate to sacrifice a supreme national interest, inextricably linked to the broad international legitimacy that Israel needs now like air to breathe. Thus, instead of waging the war as low-profile as possible (in the existing media circumstances), he chose to deliberately and officially showcase the full extent of the destruction in the strip, thereby eclipsing Hamas' crimes in the public limelight.
Averse to prolonged wars
Moreover, the apparent slowness and lack of purpose in the conduct of the war add a touch of bitterness to Trump's words. As is well known, the 45th president is averse to protracted wars and advocates a neo-isolationist foreign policy. As a corollary, the fact that the war in Gaza has long since exceeded its original boundaries and spilled over into other arenas, with growing American military involvement, arouses in him a deep fear that the American superpower might be dragged straight into a dangerous quagmire that could – with one violent flare-up – further cloud the entire global horizon.
Finally, the central implicit message of the interview is the following: Trump, frustrated by Netanyahu's initiative (which apparently was not coordinated with him) to address members of the Republican caucus in both houses of Congress (in the spirit of his 2015 speech before both houses, delivered in defiance of then-President Barack Obama and his Vice President Biden), conveys – through his scathing criticism of how the war is being conducted – a clear message to the Republican camp in Congress (but not only to them) that it is best to keep its distance from the current prime minister of Israel, from whom he has been bitterly disappointed.
Frustration and distrust
Since this is a political and ideological camp whose support for Israel is solid and unequivocal, it is easy to understand what the far-reaching implications of these words might be, despite their implied and suggestive nature.
If we add to this eye-opening interview the expressions of frustration, distrust, and deep suspicion toward Netanyahu, which are repeatedly reflected in the statements of President Biden and (almost) "all the President's men", we can conclude that the State of Israel is rapidly becoming these days a burdensome liability for the US rather than a powerful strategic asset, and this applies not only to the Democratic Party and its radical fringes but also to the leader of the Republican Party, who is also its presumptive presidential nominee.
