The Israel Pivot

Questioning Israel’s influence on American foreign policy is no longer a third rail. If anything, it has become safe. It is probably the most discussed subject on major podcasts, especially amusing because it is usually preceded with complaints that “you can’t talk about this” or showy declarations that the host is not suicidal.

The connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism remains politically charged. The House of Representatives “clearly and firmly state[d] that anti-Zionism is antisemitism” in House Resolution 894, passed 311-14 in December 2023. In January 2025, soon after taking office, President Donald Trump issued an executive order on “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism” that expands on his 2019 executive order. It instructed federal agencies to consider the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of antisemitism, which included rhetorical attacks on Israel as possible examples of anti-Semitism.

Many deny this connection. For example, the anti-Israel candidate Abdul el-Sayed, the Democrat nominee for Senate in Michigan, has said he “loves” Jews. Other opponents of Israel may actually accept the Trump Administration’s definition for the opposite reason, claiming that there is a necessary and logical connection between Judaism and Zionism.

However, the electoral impact of Israel on the 2026 midterms will have little to do with semantics, religious disputes, or moral theorizing. Instead, it will focus on oil, diesel, and inflation. The Trump Administration’s decision to join Israel in an attack on the Islamic Republic of Iran has led to stubbornly high gas prices as Tehran has managed to disrupt traffic through the Strait of Hormuz.

Though the Trump Administration has claimed the Strait is currently “open,” the picture is further complicated by the lightning offensive launched by Houthi military forces in Yemen against Saudi backed mercenaries and the kingdom’s critical East-West pipeline. This threatens Saudi Arabia’s shipments to Europe and more broadly, the entire social and economic foundation of the Gulf States. These powers have increasingly allied with the United States and (more quietly) with Israel in recent years, but America’s inability to defend them and its own bases from missile strikes may force them to reconsider their strategic choices, as well as convince wealthy investors to seek safer locations.

New Saudi shipments have temporarily prevented the energy apocalypse some were predicting earlier this week, but these are always at the mercy of future Houthi military success. Meanwhile, there is no end in sight to the president’s Iranian adventure, with President Trump’s repeated claims of victory now being replaced by Vice President JD Vance’s assurance that merely “phase one” is complete. Previous attempts to cut a deal have broken down over who would control the Strait of Hormuz. Today, America is so desperate that it is difficult to believe the United States would not just accept the status quo antebellum, if only to reduce oil prices.

However, Iran has proven its ability to break the Trump Administration’s political momentum, shatter America’s Middle Eastern security arraignments, and possibly even expel America from the Gulf. Many have therefore concluded Iran is “winning,” or has already won. This is too simplistic. These successes come at the cost of Iran losing almost all its oil exports, leading to skyrocketing inflation and possible fiscal collapse.

The Trump Administration seems to have settled on financially strangling the Islamic Republic to bring it to the negotiating table, or, failing that, collapsing the regime. Yet despite scattered attacks targeting security forces, the Iranian regime does not seem likely to collapse before the midterm elections. Such a collapse is perhaps the last possible “October Surprise” the president could expect to boost his party’s fortunes. Instead, both America and Iran are trapped in a long-term war of financial attrition. While Iran is unquestionably suffering far greater costs, its regime is more willing and able to endure those costs. For Tehran, the stakes are existential, as is the question of obtaining a nuclear weapon. For America, the war was of choice, and in the eyes of many voters, not even America’s choice.

Polling on the Iran war is ruinous for Republicans. About 60 percent of Americans oppose the war in Iran, with just over a third supporting it. Almost two-thirds of voters think President Trump made a mistake in ordering the attack. A Reuters poll found just a quarter of voters think the war in Iran is worth it.

Yet this is not the worst part for Republicans. A new New York Times/Siena poll found that Democrats not only enjoy a commanding lead in the generic ballot but lead the GOP on the issues of “the economy” and the “cost of living,” among others. Higher gas prices are felt by almost all Americans, and the dramatic increase in heating oil prices will become salient at the worst possible time for Republicans. Meanwhile, high diesel prices dramatically increase transportation costs for businesses. Though many companies do not immediately pass on these costs to consumers, that will change the longer the conflict drags on, increasing inflation and voters’ complaints about the high cost of living. The news that America is “selling” Israel another $2.8 billion worth of bombs, with American taxpayers subsidizing most of it, is unlikely to appease angry voters. The attack ads write themselves.

Remarkably, though Vice President JD Vance has loyally supported the president’s foreign policy, he is now being attacked for being anti-Israel. Several conservative commentators are pressuring him to disavow his “friend” Tucker Carlson. Politico reported in July that Jewish Republican donors were angry at the vice president for allegedly turning on Israel, and “staking his claim on the anti-Israel, woke right,” in one donor’s phrase. Of course, many “America First” populists are furious at JD Vance for not breaking with President Trump himself. The presumptive Republican nominee in 2028 thus finds himself walking an impossible tightrope, unable to defy the Commander-in-Chief but rapidly losing credibility with both pro-Israel donors and anti-Israel voters and influencers. His political position is untenable. If he wants to be president, he needs a radical policy change.

The Iran War thus has divided the MAGA movement, imposed economic costs that threaten to cripple the remainder of President Trump’s term, and potentially kneecapped the next GOP presidential candidate. Peace, if not “victory,” is unlikely to arrive in the short-term, and President Trump’s fortunes will not rise unless the Islamic Republic falls within a month. What is needed is a more fundamental pivot.

Much like only President Richard Nixon could go to China, perhaps it is only President Donald Trump who could change the dysfunctional US-Israel special relationship. President Trump has previously expressed impatience and frustration with Israel generally and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu specifically and may come to feel that he has not received due gratitude for what he has done for the Jewish State. President Trump clearly wants to be a Great Man of History and it seems likely that he hoped the war in Iran would go as quickly and smoothly as the Venezuela operation, establishing him as the man who avenged the embassy seizure and took down the mullahs. This did not happen. However, President Trump still can be the man who extricated America from the Middle East.

Rather than limiting negotiations to questions of nuclear power and control over the Strait of Hormuz, President Trump should offer geostrategic and military concessions in exchange for economic concessions for Iran. Both powers face critical weaknesses in each of these spheres. America’s military posture in the Middle East has been ruined. American bases no longer appear of much use. Its alliance with Israel is no longer the subject of bipartisan consensus.

Meanwhile, Iran may have gained in strategic terms, but the regime cannot survive such economic ruin indefinitely. The Iranian government may be willing to sustain higher costs, but it also faces much higher risks. Prestige means nothing if it can no longer pay its troops and security forces or feed its people. Both sides have something to gain and something to lose. Sentiment is not necessary to cut a more comprehensive deal.

America could offer a pullout from now useless Middle Eastern bases as well as a withdrawal of military aid from Israel. President Trump could thus call Benjamin’s Netanyahu’s bluff that Israel no longer needs or wants American aid. President Trump could credibly argue that the United States has already done everything that could be expected to guarantee Israel’s security. Vice President Vance could make the case with even greater force, especially because the most militant Israel supporters in the American Right have already turned against him. Iran in return would need to guarantee energy supplies to the world market as well as restraining its Houthi allies from disrupting Saudi oil shipments. The United States has already proposed a nuclear deal with Saudi Arabia potentially allowing for the possession of enriched uranium, giving America possible leverage over Iran in any nuclear negotiations.

President Trump’s decision to tear up the Obama Administration’s deal with Iran has likely destroyed his credibility to defend any agreement. However, the naked threat of allowing Tehran’s Sunni rival to more openly pursue nuclear weapons could make Tehran more pliable if this is combined with the symbolic triumph of forcing an American pullout from the Middle East and backing away from Israel. America in return would need to demand policies that would reduce energy costs, thus boosting the Administration’s political fortunes.

Pulling out of military bases in the Middle East may seem like a defeat, but this defeat has already occurred. New reports indicate that the bases have suffered far more damage than previously reported. A better comparison may be to compare these now useless bases to the outdated missiles President John F. Kennedy pulled out of Turkey in order to end the Cuban Missile Crisis. As with that agreement, the gradual withdrawal from these bases could be sold as a separate development from any potential deal with Iran. The real source of American military power in the region, its carrier groups, are unharmed.

The obvious objection to discussing any such deal is that President Trump is either unwilling or unable to defy Israel. The above, some might say, is just wishful thinking. That may prove true. Yet the economic realities of the Iran War are even harder to defy than the Israel Lobby. If the Administration does not focus on the economic costs being imposed on the American people, it risks the absurd spectacle of the “America First” banner being seized by the likes of Abdul el-Sayed and Ro Khanna.

The America-Israel relationship will change. The American people demands it and the economic costs require it. All that is in question is who will get the credit. The Iran War was a strategic blunder that risks consuming President Trump’s Administration and the MAGA movement itself. Yet it also provides an opportunity for him to reclaim his populist and anti-establishment credentials. If only out of self-interest, he should seize it. He may then prove himself a Great Man of History after all.