Between Symbolism and Effective Action
Did Trump Actually Help Israel?
After hearing Trump, during his State of the Union address, attribute virtually all achievements in the Middle East solely to the United States, a striking contradiction became apparent: what was presented as victory was, in many cases, largely symbolic rather than a genuine contribution to Israel's security. It can be argued that the Trump administration claimed the media and political credit for several pivotal developments in the Middle East, while the tangible outcomes on the ground proved far less consequential.
In Gaza, Trump declared victory through the creation of a peace council that included states which had supported Hamas and, according to critics, continued to do so. He presented this as a success for both his administration and Israel. Yet the reality suggests that Hamas's capacity to endure was not fundamentally broken, and the conflict itself remained unresolved. As a result, the gains achieved in this case appear more symbolic and media-driven than strategically transformative.
In Syria, the United States portrayed the fall of Bashar al-Assad's regime as a strategic victory. However, this symbolic success also opened the door to the rise of the jihadist leader al-Jolani and other militias that may pose future threats to Israel's security. These forces, according to this perspective, operate beyond conventional sectarian calculations and are motivated by ideological agendas that extend beyond traditional regional power politics. Consequently, media victories were not accompanied by the type of stability that would guarantee Israel's long-term strategic security. Even if al-Jolani's immediate behavior appeared less hostile toward Israel, the concern raised here is that such ideological hostility is not a recent phenomenon but is rooted in historical and religious traditions within the region.
In Iran, the so-called Twelve-Day War demonstrated, in the author's view, that Trump overestimated America's ability to impose decisive outcomes. He announced that Iranian nuclear facilities had been struck and that the confrontation had been resolved in Washington's favor, claiming that the war ended after both sides were compelled to halt hostilities. Yet subsequent developments suggested that Iran's nuclear infrastructure had not been completely eliminated and that Tehran retained capabilities allowing it to continue advancing its nuclear program. Here, the distinction between symbolic political messaging and actual power on the ground becomes evident. Symbolic support does not necessarily provide genuine strategic protection for a small state such as Israel, which relies heavily on international stability and long-term alliances that transcend party politics.
Trump's approach has consistently emphasized media victories over practical realities. During the State of the Union address, many of the statistics and accomplishments he presented portrayed him as the figure responsible for resolving major international conflicts. Yet much of what he described reflected aspirations and projections rather than fully realized achievements. An examination of conditions on the ground suggests that while Israel may have gained symbolic advantages during Trump's tenure, its national security environment became increasingly complex. The emergence of a new jihadist order in Syria and the failure to completely neutralize Iranian capabilities arguably left Israel facing a more difficult regional balance of power, particularly as a demographic and geopolitical minority within its broader environment. Trump's tendency to end conflicts regardless of the strategic outcome cannot necessarily be regarded as a secure long-term policy for either Israel or the region; rather, it may represent a temporary pause in conflicts that remain unresolved.
This argument can be better understood through developments in Syria. Various reports suggested that President Trump effectively presented two options for Syria. The first involved partitioning the country into ethnic or sectarian entities, a solution some viewed as preferable to a centralized jihadist regime on Israel's borders. The second involved supporting Syria's new leadership while preserving the country's territorial unity and allowing it to confront its challenges independently. However, no significant discussion was given to alternative scenarios that may have offered greater long-term stability. Public discourse focused almost exclusively on these two options, creating what critics view as an incomplete picture of reality. From this perspective, a more favorable outcome for Syria would have involved governance by authorities aligned with regional arrangements that prevented the emergence of forces viewing Jews as absolute enemies. This illustrates the gap between public messaging and policies capable of producing genuine strategic stability. According to this argument, Saudi Arabia's hesitation regarding further normalization initiatives after the rise of Sunni-aligned forces in Syria demonstrates the broader regional consequences. Moreover, if Israel and the United States permit al-Jolani's forces and associated militias to confront Shiite and Christian communities across borders, the region surrounding Israel could become significantly more unstable.
Regarding Iran, Trump is portrayed as having followed a similar approach. An alternative strategy, according to the author, might have involved granting Iran a defined role in Iraq and Syria while simultaneously encouraging systematic political change, thereby redirecting Tehran's attention toward minority issues rather than pushing it entirely out of Syria and into alignment with Sunni regional actors united by hostility toward Israel. Trump's perceived lack of understanding of the role of sectarianism and minority politics in the Middle East led him, in this interpretation, toward change for its own sake rather than toward sustainable strategic outcomes.
This pattern was perhaps even more visible in Afghanistan. The United States treated Afghanistan as a resolved problem, yet a powerful jihadist movement ultimately inherited large quantities of American military equipment while the underlying issues remained unresolved. The assumption that the Sunni political and military landscape had become manageable, and that jihadist threats had either been eliminated or decapitated through the removal of key leaders, resembled the logic later applied in Syria during Trump's administration.
If future administrations continue attempting to assist Israel in this manner, Israel may ultimately find itself receiving rhetorical support rather than meaningful strategic backing. Before Trump, support for Israel was widely regarded by both Republicans and Democrats as an important component of American national security policy. According to this argument, support has increasingly become concentrated within the Republican Party, potentially weakening Israel's broader bipartisan foundation in Congress.
Trump's central mistake, from this perspective, was believing that his method of stopping conflicts was effective simply because other states feared American power. Today, however, many countries appear less confident in American leadership. Critics argue that Trump increasingly personalized American foreign policy, making it appear centered on his own political priorities. Israeli policymakers, therefore, must recognize that a clearly defined adversary—whether in peace or conflict—is easier to manage than a constantly shifting strategic environment. The uncertainty generated by Trump's policies in neighboring states has, in this view, increased risks for Israel and reduced confidence in American mediation efforts.
Ultimately, developments in Gaza, Syria, Iran, and Afghanistan illustrate how symbolic achievements can generate significant political and media attention while failing to guarantee practical results on the ground. Trump claimed credit for several pivotal events in the Middle East, yet these developments did not necessarily translate into lasting strategic victories for Israel, whether in terms of immediate security or long-term geopolitical strength. For this reason, a realistic assessment of outcomes remains more important than media narratives or personal claims of success.
Zion Peace Union