In this U.S. election, Benjamin Netanyahu didn’t even make a clumsy attempt to hide his preferences. At least twice during security discussions, he gave speeches saying that if Donald Trump is elected, it will be easier because Trump understands the Iranian issue. With the other side, it would be harder — like with Barack Obama, and even more so. Netanyahu surely knew these statements would leak.
After the leak, the Prime Minister’s Office denial was weak, late, and did not stop Netanyahu from continuing to say such things. Trump himself publicly said that Netanyahu calls him occasionally. Netanyahu does not call Vice President Kamala Harris. In the 2012 election between Obama and Mitt Romney, Democrats criticized Netanyahu harshly for far less. This time, it’s hardly a story. Everyone in the world understands Netanyahu is rooting for Trump and is terrified of Harris winning. In a way, it’s even smart of Netanyahu to make this public. He scores points with Trump, who loves flattery, and doesn’t lose any with the Democrats, since he has no credit left there anyway.
Against this backdrop, it’s rare to find that Netanyahu made a relatively pragmatic decision in choosing targets and timing the strike on Iran. It’s still too early to tell whether Israel’s response was wise at all. The whole idea of “sending a message” has lost its meaning. The Iranians know Israel can strike and cause damage; they don’t need Israel to lower their air defenses to realize that. What’s the point in risking continued exchanges of blows just to “send a message”?
Still, the strike was coordinated with the Biden-Harris administration and did not exceed what was agreed upon. It’s refreshing to see Netanyahu still capable of pragmatic decisions despite the temptation to embarrass the Democrats and help Trump. Naturally, Israel’s heavy dependence on the U.S. for the war effort played a role. When someone gives you over $18 billion a year, you don’t mess with them.
The big question is what Netanyahu can realistically get from Trump if he is elected. Clearly, no one in the world can truly answer that. Even Trump himself doesn’t know how he will behave. Reasonable boundaries can be sketched. It’s not logical that Trump would lead a war against Iran. If the unstable man has shown one consistent line, it’s isolationism — a desire not to fight wars for anyone else, certainly not in the Middle East. In fact, Trump repeatedly expresses his desire for a deal with Iran and to “end the wars” in Gaza and Lebanon.
The more likely scenario is that Trump will not back Netanyahu’s ambitious plan — which is indeed an important Israeli interest: a crippling military strike on the Iranian regime and, as a result, on all its proxies — and will instead give a free hand to Netanyahu’s coalition’s other, scarier vision: annexation of Judea and Samaria, easing pressure on extremist settlers — all of which Trump finds easy as long as it’s merely declarative. He has no problem recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan or East Jerusalem. With enough flattery and money from Miriam Adelson, or someone else, this could happen. He could recognize annexation of parts of the Strip, the West Bank, and even the moon — as long as no American money or troops are involved.
Still, this is not the basis for the paralyzing fear regarding a Trump election. Israel is probably the country where Trump enjoys the greatest support. Trump, who denies NATO, is close to Vladimir Putin, scoffs at the climate crisis, and leads an authoritarian policy in the U.S., will cause enormous damage to every Israeli — even if his statements are friendly to Israel and he remembers to compliment the Prime Minister’s wife’s beauty.