Former ambassador Herzog warns Israel’s influence in Washington has diminished sharply under Trump

Herzog talked about Netanyahu’s declaration that his meeting with Trump had been one of their “best meetings ever,” as well as Israel’s standing in the United States amid tensions with Iran and the possibility that the full-scale war could resume.

“I think something in the intimacy of the relationship has been damaged,” Herzog said.

“It was not a long meeting, and there were many people in the room. In my experience, when a meeting is that crowded, the truly important decisions are not made. The meeting was more important for the fact that it took place, in the sense that Trump did not attack him. It was a relaxed conversation.”

According to Herzog, the meeting could be interpreted as successful because the US did not level specific demands at Israel.

“The achievement lies in the fact that he did not come to us with criticism or specific demands. He did not tell us, ‘Get out of Lebanon or Syria.’ They apparently discussed options for what to do regarding Iran, but that was not where the important decisions were made.”

“There is always value in direct contact between leaders,” he added. “When Trump is at a decision point on Iran, deciding whether or not to escalate, there is value in a conversation that examines those options."

"But it was not what they tried to portray to us, as though there had been some breakthrough or something amazing. Netanyahu clearly has an interest in presenting it as a good meeting and correcting the impression that the relationship has deteriorated. But it must be seen in the proper perspective.”

“It is quite clear that the prime minister, as a politician ahead of elections, has a political objective in making such a trip,” Herzog said.

“That is almost self-evident. But when the meeting takes place, diplomatic issues are discussed.

This is a moment when Trump needs to make a truly important decision regarding Iran, so there is value in a face-to-face conversation. As I said, however, real decisions are not made with a large group of people in the room. That is not how it works.”

“In diplomatic code, the fact that the prime minister entered through a side entrance, that there was no press, and that there was no one-on-one meeting means that Trump wanted to avoid keeping him too close,” he added.

“I remember meetings in which he waited for him at the door and hugged him. That did not happen this time. There was a desire to maintain a low profile, to hold the meeting without any major displays of closeness.”

“The war with Iran is very unpopular, and Israel is perceived as having dragged Trump into it,” Herzog continued.

“Trump strongly dislikes that image. That is one of the reasons it was important for him to keep Netanyahu at arm’s length and not bring him too close. I feel, and I hear, that the level of intimacy in the relationship has been damaged. Notice that they do not speak with the same frequency with which they spoke previously. Israel’s influence on decision-making in the United States has diminished greatly.”

“On the Iranian issue, for example, Trump viewed Israel as a partner in the war, but not as a partner in ending the war,” he said. “In his mind, and this is what his advisers tell him all the time, ‘As far as Israel is concerned, it is endless war.’ That is not something he identifies with, and it is politically bad for him in the United States. That is why we are seeing this distancing. He is not turning against us.”

“Trump hates it when people make a fool of him or humiliate him, and the Iranians are certainly getting on his nerves,” Herzog said. “There is no disagreement about that between Israel and the United States. Trump understands very well who the Iranians are. But he wants to make his own decisions without it appearing as though Netanyahu dragged him into a war.

“In his recent remarks, when he was asked about Netanyahu, he said, ‘No one is going to tell me about Pickaxe Mountain,’ or ‘whether or not to sell F-35s,’ as if to say, ‘I don’t need him.’”

“I am not saying there is currently a crisis in relations between the administration and Israel,” Herzog added. “I feel there has been a certain distancing and damage to the intimacy. That is not good for us when dramatic decisions are supposed to be made. This must also be viewed against the broader background of the very serious erosion of Israel’s standing in the United States. There has been very serious erosion, and it is not temporary. It is something deep that requires investment.”

“There are internal processes in the United States that are unrelated to us,” he said. “Demographic, political, and economic processes have contributed to the erosion of Israel’s standing. Added to that is a years-long campaign to delegitimize Israel, funded by Qatar, Iran, and various other actors, as well as mistakes Israel has made over the years that have greatly damaged its image.”

“It began with the way Netanyahu chose to fight the Iran nuclear deal, which was bad, by going to Congress behind the president’s back,” he said.

“Every week I was in the United States, I heard Democratic lawmakers say that it put them in an impossible position, forcing them to choose between their own president and the leader of another country they loved.”

“The image projected by this government greatly damaged Israel’s image, as did everything that happened during this war,” Herzog said.

“There is a paradox here. We were attacked by a murderous terrorist organization, but the prolonged war created an image as though Israel only wants endless wars. That extends to the Iranian issue, where we are now perceived, even by the American Right, as having dragged the United States into a war.”