In Washington, foreign policy is born at home.
From churches. From campaign rallies. From living rooms.
If you want to understand America’s choices in the Middle East, listen to what’s said in those places, not just at press conferences.
Our guest on The Diplomat is Aaron David Miller, former US peace negotiator in the Israeli – Palestinian file and adviser to six Republican and Democratic administrations. He has been in the backrooms of presidential summits from Camp David to Gaza, and inside the debates on Iran.
Today, he speaks candidly about Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu, the war in Gaza, and what he calls the red lines no US president dares cross with Israel.
Let’s start with Trump, Netanyahu, and the evangelicals. Who’s really in charge now?
“We’re only six months into Trump’s term,” Miller says. “He’s dealing with the longest-serving Israeli prime minister in history, one of the most politically ruthless. Netanyahu has a fair shot at reelection if Israel votes in early 2026. Trump, on the other hand, is a situationalist. He has strategic instincts but doesn’t think in terms of long-term strategic implementation. He’s driven by the moment, domestic politics, his financial interests, his vanities, his ego. That’s what has shaped much of what you’ve seen over the past six months.”
The relationship, Miller notes, is instrumental, based on shared interests. “There’s also tension, and it’s not new. I’ve served under every president since Jimmy Carter, and I’ve never seen any president, Republican or Democrat, sideline Israel the way Trump has.”
How?
“In March, Trump told his hostage negotiator, Adam Bowler, to open a dialogue with Hamas, designated as a foreign terrorist organization under US law. Israel found out after the fact. He cut a deal with the Houthis that said if they left US naval ships alone, their attacks on Israel wouldn’t break the arrangement. He lifted sanctions on the Ahmad Shah government over Netanyahu’s objections. He opened talks with Iran, announcing them in April while Netanyahu stood next to him, despite Netanyahu urging him not to. He freed Idan Alexander in a deal routed through an American – Palestinian intermediary working directly with Hamas leadership in Doha. Again, Israel learned after the fact.”
What are the red lines that would push a president to pressure Israel?
“First, believing Netanyahu is playing him. Second, believing Netanyahu has made him look weak, which isn’t the case. In fact, Israel’s 12 days of strikes on Iran gave Trump the chance to look strong. He did what no president had done: hit Iran directly without triggering a regional war, at almost no cost. Third, if Trump thought Netanyahu was blocking something he really wanted, like an Israeli – Saudi normalization deal or a Nobel Peace Prize. We’re far from that.”
For now, Miller says, coordination between them is close. “The administration will soon announce a $30 million Gaza aid plan. Trump asked the Israelis to fund it. I don’t think he’s concluded yet that he must pressure Netanyahu to end the war in Gaza. Neither man trusts nor likes the other.”
But Trump gave Netanyahu Jerusalem and the Golan. Is this rift strategic or just Trump being Trump?
“Presidents don’t like to pick fights with Israeli prime ministers,” Miller says. “There have been moments of tension. Reagan suspended three arms shipments to Israel. Bush Sr. denied $10 billion in loan guarantees. But the last president to truly threaten Israel with consequences was Eisenhower in 1956 over Sinai. Since then, none have dared.”
Why is open criticism so rare?
Miller offers three reasons. “First, politics. Confronting Israel is costly, except maybe for Jimmy Carter. Evangelicals play a big role. They pushed Trump on Jerusalem and the embassy move. For the first time, the US had an evangelical ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
Second, emotion. Some presidents have a deep personal bond with Israel. I watched Bill Clinton grieve Rabin’s assassination and later write, ‘I loved Rabin as I loved no man.’ Reagan had a deep commitment to Israel. Biden’s emotional tie was part of why he didn’t pressure Israel after October 7, 2023.
Third, the belief that cooperation with Israel gets results. Nixon and Ford brokered disengagement agreements after the October War. Carter brought Sadat and Begin to Camp David. James Baker worked functionally with Shamir despite tensions.
How does that affect America’s image in the Middle East?
“Since October 7, 2023, two US administrations have enabled Netanyahu in Gaza without cost or consequence. No Arab state-imposed penalties on Israel or the US. Egypt and Jordan, treaty partners, did nothing. The Abraham Accords states stayed quiet. Even Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Morocco didn’t act. Arab governments, authoritarian or not, act on national interest, not slogans.”
And the evangelicals, are they losing influence?
“All polls show two things,” Miller says. “First, Israel’s favorability has dropped, though it’s still above 50 percent. Second, a sharp partisan split. Republicans remain the ‘Israel can do no wrong’ party. Democrats are deeply divided. In the Senate’s recent vote on military aid to Israel, most of the 27 opposing votes came from Democrats. That base of support is showing cracks. But I’m not ready to say it will change US policy, because I haven’t seen it translate into action yet.
Headline or trend?
“That’s the question. A headline is the moment. A trend is the future. I can’t say yet.”
On Europe’s shift
“Would I have imagined the Netherlands calling Israel a national security threat? No. But again, is it a moment or the shape of the future? Since October 7, Slovenia and Sweden have banned arms exports. The UK, France, and Canada are moving toward recognizing Palestine. It could be a wave to please domestic audiences, or it could be the start of a pivot. The international response has been divided, self-interested, distracted, and mostly feckless. No real costs have been imposed to change US or Israeli policy.”
America’s real priorities
“The Middle East is not a land of opportunity for America. It’s a land of interest. Three are vital: counterterrorism to protect the homeland, keeping oil flowing freely even if we don’t need it because the world does, and preventing a regional hegemon from getting a nuclear weapon. Yes, that means Iran. Arab – Israeli peace is desirable, but it’s not existential for US policy.”
Iran: escalation or chaos?
“Even the Iran experts I know sometimes don’t know. The regime’s top goal is survival. After Israeli and US strikes, maybe they feel they need a bomb more urgently, or maybe they’re playing a longer game: rebuild proxies, keep China and Russia close, advance the nuclear program gradually. A third option is a transactional deal with the US to ease sanctions and restart talks. I don’t know where they stand.”
The Gulf’s 360-degree diplomacy
“Saudi Arabia has relations with everyone, China, Russia, the US. MBS wants a close US relationship, but not an exclusive one. He wants defense guarantees and support for his civilian nuclear program. Other Gulf states prefer the US as a security partner but keep economic and political options open, especially with oil tying them to Russia and China.”
A last word
“I’ve never believed in ‘America First,’ because it often leads to ‘America Alone.’ It weakens our influence and blinds us to the needs of our partners. I’ve seen that play out clearly under Trump.”
Joe Kawly
Joe Kawly is a veteran global affairs journalist with over two decades of frontline reporting across Washington, D.C. and the Middle East. A CNN Journalism Fellow and Georgetown University graduate, his work focuses on U.S. foreign policy, Arab world politics, and diplomacy. With deep regional insight and narrative clarity, Joe focuses on making complex global dynamics clear, human, and relevant.
