Though Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have long advocated reducing Israel’s dependence on American aid, and the US has demonstrated its commitment to Israel by fighting alongside it in two separate wars, even the prospect of Washington withdrawing its support without coordinating with Jerusalem first could undermine confidence in the US as a reliable regional partner, particularly among Gulf states, Arman Mahmoudian, a research associate at the University of South Florida’s Center for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday.
Trump said on Tuesday that he had reached an agreement with Netanyahu to end Washington’s annual $4 billion in aid to Israel after this year. The announcement indicated a significantly shorter timeline than the one Netanyahu proposed in a January interview with The Economist, in which he said the aid would be phased out over the next 10 years.
“We know that Prime Minister Netanyahu has been discussing Israel’s need to become more self-reliant and less dependent on American assistance for some time.... The argument is that greater independence would not only reduce Israel’s reliance on Washington but also ease some of the political and diplomatic pressure that the United States has historically been able to exert on Israel,” Mahmoudian explained, adding that the sudden announcement wasn’t a complete departure from Netanyahu’s approach and that the move might have been coordinated between the two governments.
Should Gulf states believe Trump’s claim that an agreement to end American military aid had been made months ago and that it was Netanyahu who suggested the move, Washington could preserve its image of being a reliable partner in the region, Mahmoudian explained. However, “if the decision is made unilaterally by Washington, without coordination with Israel or despite Israel’s continued need for American assistance, it would send a very different message to the region.”
The Middle East would like to view a surprise end in the assistance to its most important strategic ally as a cause for concern on Washington’s long-term commitment to its regional partners,” he continued.
Unclear if 10-year US-Israel MoU affected
Adding to the uncertainty, Trump did not clarify whether the announcement would affect the 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that sets the framework for US military assistance to Israel. Although the MOU is not legally binding, any changes to the terms of US military assistance would require congressional involvement, rather than being decided solely by Trump and Netanyahu.
How willing the Middle East is to view the announcement as part of a joint decision will also be impacted by Washington’s recent decisions in the region, “particularly Washington’s treatment of its Kurdish partners in Syria.”
Syrian SDF faces considerable uncertainty related to US commitments
“The Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have faced considerable uncertainty regarding American commitments, first during Turkish military operations and, more recently, amid growing pressure from Damascus,” Mahmoudian outlined. “Similarly, Washington’s relatively passive approach toward certain phases of the Saudi-Houthi conflict could contribute to the perception that the United States is gradually reducing its willingness to become actively involved in regional security affairs…Taken together, these developments could lead regional actors to interpret a unilateral reduction in aid to Israel as another indication of a broader American strategic retrenchment from the Middle East.”
Still, Mahmoudian said that many in the region were aware that the announcement was attached to American domestic politics and came just before the midterm elections.
“It is possible that President Trump intended to appeal to segments of his political base that have become increasingly dissatisfied with American involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts and continued assistance to Israel,” he reasoned.
Some members of Trump’s Make America Great Again movement have also become increasingly critical of Israel, accusing it of having misled the president − who campaigned on a promise to avoid foreign interventions − into believing Iran could easily be defeated. Polls show most Americans oppose the war, which has driven up US gasoline prices and pushed down Trump’s approval ratings.
A Quinnipiac University poll in June found 48% of voters and 66% of Democrats believe the US is too supportive of Israel, up from 16% and 20%, respectively, when the question was first asked in 2017.
“Regional governments may recognize this domestic political dimension as well. Rather than interpreting the announcement as a fundamental shift in American foreign policy, they might view it primarily as a political maneuver designed to appeal to American voters,” Mahmoudian concluded. “Ultimately, I think much depends on whether President Trump actually follows through with the decision and, perhaps more importantly, whether Congress is willing to support its implementation. Until those questions are answered, it is difficult to determine whether this represents a genuine strategic shift in American Middle East policy or simply a reflection of domestic political considerations.”
Idan Kweller contributed to this report.