Israel’s security in an era of transactional backing
What happens when American power is guided less by alliances and more by transactions? What does Israel do when the personality anchoring its strategic certainty is no longer in office?
These questions sit at the centre of “America First” and matter for Israel beyond sympathy, rhetoric, or short-term alignment.
US pressure has been applied consistently, and the reasons are clearer than the speeches suggest. Military force, diplomacy, and coercion appear where interests are apparent, and officials sometimes describe the calculation directly Venezuela is the clearest example. President Trump remarked, with comic frankness, that oil was central to the calculation. Humanitarian concern and democratic restoration appeared, but they did not read as the main driver. Trump’s bluntness was striking, carrying a hard implication: when the return is uncertain or slow, alliances and stated principles slip down the priority list.
Threatening to use military force over the Panama Canal, talk of acquiring Greenland through economic inducement, and blunt signals to smaller partners point in the same direction. Access, resources, and location matter more than loyalty. For Israel, long reliant on the assumption that strategic alignment is value enough, this should prompt careful thought.
The same logic shaped US conduct towards NATO. Criticism, embarrassment of European leaders, and demands that allies “pay” signalled intent. NATO was told that protection is conditional, and responsibility for security must shift to Europe. Alliances are treated as cost measures rather than commitments. Yet this posture did not mean accommodation of Russia. Though the tone towards Moscow softened, intelligence support to Ukraine continued. The result was a dual track: warmth towards Russian leadership alongside operational resistance to Russian expansion.
The experience of the Kurds of Rojava, in western Kurdistan, should not be overlooked. In north-eastern Syria, the American withdrawal was swift once its perceived strategic value fell. Local partners were praised, then left exposed to jihadi fighters in Syrian army uniforms and armed with Turkish military weapons. America First’s lesson was harsh but clear, service and friendship do not guarantee protection. Geography and timing matter.
As Ukraine was pressured to sign the United States–Ukraine Reconstruction Investment Fund (URIF), the next deal may be with Russia, offered in exchange for the US withdrawal of support for Ukraine. The pattern implies a two-sided value-extraction strategy. The unannounced deal negotiations may be in their final stages, led by Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump’s friend and a businessman, and accompanied by Trump’s senior adviser and son-in-law, Jared Kushner. One may innocently ask: What exactly is the job of Secretary of State Marco Rubio?
Once you look past the flexibility, a risk appears for Israel; dependence on a political figure, however supportive, becomes a strategic gamble. Donald Trump’s presidency delivered tangible gains for Israel, particularly in recognition and diplomatic backing. Yet the ideology around him has matured beyond him. A circle of hardline “America First” figures now argue that automatic security guarantees serve no American interest, and some of them have strong electoral prospects.
Israel may face a colder calculation, with support weighed against cost. In such a framework, wealthier Gulf states with large purchasing power may appear more attractive partners than Israel, which offers intelligence, stability, and alignment but also requires long-term commitment.
The task is to track a direction in American policy and think through what it means for Israel’s planning. Israel remains valuable to American interests, yet value does not always translate into automatic guarantees when Washington’s approach becomes more transactional. Reliance on one leader’s instincts can hold steady for a while, then weaken when the political cycle turns. Assumptions built on older patterns can feel prudent until the day they fail.
What comes into view, once reassurance is stripped away, is the need to prepare rather than react. Diversified alliances, stronger strategic autonomy, and a clear understanding that American policy is entering a more transactional phase should structure planning now, not later.
The friendship may continue, but the circumstances shaping it are changing, and that calls for a sharper strategic sense.
Ab Boskany is an Australian writer of Kurdish-Jewish background. He writes fiction, poetry and literary essays, and has contributes to “The Jewish Report” (Melbourne and Sydney editions, every issue) and “All Israel News”. His work intertwines memory, exile and faith, engaging both with Jewish history and the wider cultural worlds of the Middle East. He publishes in Kurdish and Arabic. He holds a BA in English Literature from the University of Western Sydney, an MA in Literature (Texts and Writing), and an MA in TESOL.