How important was, and going forward now is, Netanyahu's especially close relationship with Trump?
The extent to which the US engaged Iran in support of Israel's defense, in knocking down incoming fire, and especially offensively, contributed to Isreal's battlefield success in knocking down Iran's nuclear infrastructure, seems closely related to Trump's fondness for Netanyahu as well as Netanyahu's management of Israel's relationship with President Trump.
Trump, like Biden, relieved some of Israel's burden in the elimination of incoming fire, but Trump greenlighted Israel's attack on Iran's important military, command and economic infrastructure, except for removal of the Ayatollah; and then after much unfortunate delay, made a serious and comprehensive attempt to "obliterate" Iran's nuclear enterprise, and now brags about it. All of which goes counter to what had seemed to be his political promises to his base.
How much of this was related to Trump's close relationship with Netanyahu, and Netanyahu's management of his interchange with President Trump? How important is this relationship going forward?
Thanks for the question Mark. Obviously personal relationships are critically important, and one cannot ignore the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu when trying to understand what just happened. I am thankfully neither a Trump whisperer or a Bibi whisperer, so I can't pontificate whether this is a marriage of convenience or whether there has been a high degree of coordination - not just over months but over years - throughout their shared political careers, but I imagine that it is more convenience that anything else and that ultimately each actor was motivated for different reasons, as has often been the case throughout history.
I would like the distinguish between the personal relationships of heads of state between the administrative/bureaucratic/operational cooperation that was built over years (i.e. decades) between Israeli and US security institutions that allowed such a high degree of coordination and execution during this war. Operation Midnight Hammer doesn't happen without that close coordination, which is only possible when two states take a long term approach to relationship-building.
A final point. If we accept the reports that the US green lit the initial Israeli preventative strike and then opted participate in its own way, then Trump approved these moves because on a certain level he believed it served US interests. That doesn't mean that Trump won't come calling for some kind of favor in return, whether it means an end to the conflict or Israeli support in some other initiative, diplomatic or otherwise. This is the price of dependency on the US, and perhaps in particular a Trump presidency. But if the Israeli intelligence reports were accurate, and the Iranian threat was indeed that severe, then it may not have mattered who was the Israeli PM - they all may have made the same choice.
All human behavior is multiply determined, especially when the stakes are so high. Literal survival being the highest of stakes. Political survival for a world leader, ranks up there too.
Especially given the most recent set of social media pronouncements coming from President Trump, it seems to me that there may be a very large relational component in operation here... This coming from a POTUS who claims a transactional ideology... the transaction may be having each other's back! Personally, I think that is crucial in war time.
Thanks for both your enlightening blog and your response.
Question for Gabi,
How important was, and going forward now is, Netanyahu's especially close relationship with Trump?
The extent to which the US engaged Iran in support of Israel's defense, in knocking down incoming fire, and especially offensively, contributed to Isreal's battlefield success in knocking down Iran's nuclear infrastructure, seems closely related to Trump's fondness for Netanyahu as well as Netanyahu's management of Israel's relationship with President Trump.
Trump, like Biden, relieved some of Israel's burden in the elimination of incoming fire, but Trump greenlighted Israel's attack on Iran's important military, command and economic infrastructure, except for removal of the Ayatollah; and then after much unfortunate delay, made a serious and comprehensive attempt to "obliterate" Iran's nuclear enterprise, and now brags about it. All of which goes counter to what had seemed to be his political promises to his base.
How much of this was related to Trump's close relationship with Netanyahu, and Netanyahu's management of his interchange with President Trump? How important is this relationship going forward?
Thanks for the question Mark. Obviously personal relationships are critically important, and one cannot ignore the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu when trying to understand what just happened. I am thankfully neither a Trump whisperer or a Bibi whisperer, so I can't pontificate whether this is a marriage of convenience or whether there has been a high degree of coordination - not just over months but over years - throughout their shared political careers, but I imagine that it is more convenience that anything else and that ultimately each actor was motivated for different reasons, as has often been the case throughout history.
I would like the distinguish between the personal relationships of heads of state between the administrative/bureaucratic/operational cooperation that was built over years (i.e. decades) between Israeli and US security institutions that allowed such a high degree of coordination and execution during this war. Operation Midnight Hammer doesn't happen without that close coordination, which is only possible when two states take a long term approach to relationship-building.
A final point. If we accept the reports that the US green lit the initial Israeli preventative strike and then opted participate in its own way, then Trump approved these moves because on a certain level he believed it served US interests. That doesn't mean that Trump won't come calling for some kind of favor in return, whether it means an end to the conflict or Israeli support in some other initiative, diplomatic or otherwise. This is the price of dependency on the US, and perhaps in particular a Trump presidency. But if the Israeli intelligence reports were accurate, and the Iranian threat was indeed that severe, then it may not have mattered who was the Israeli PM - they all may have made the same choice.
All human behavior is multiply determined, especially when the stakes are so high. Literal survival being the highest of stakes. Political survival for a world leader, ranks up there too.
Especially given the most recent set of social media pronouncements coming from President Trump, it seems to me that there may be a very large relational component in operation here... This coming from a POTUS who claims a transactional ideology... the transaction may be having each other's back! Personally, I think that is crucial in war time.
Thanks for both your enlightening blog and your response.