The Last American President and Israel’s American Solution

For nearly two decades, Israeli leaders have approached the Iranian nuclear threat with a curious strategic assumption. Iran was Israel’s problem, but America would eventually become the solution.

The names changed. The administrations changed. The speeches changed. Yet the underlying hope remained remarkably constant.

In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sought a green light from President George W. Bush to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Bush declined. Years later, Benjamin Netanyahu pressed Barack Obama to take military action against Iran’s nuclear program. Obama declined as well. In 2015, Netanyahu took the extraordinary step of addressing Congress directly to oppose the Iran nuclear deal, warning that Iran posed a grave threat not only to Israel but to the world.

Then came Donald Trump.

If there was ever going to be an American president willing to do what his predecessors would not, it was Trump. He withdrew from the JCPOA, imposed maximum pressure on Tehran, authorized the killing of Qassem Soleimani, and spoke about the Iranian regime with a clarity rarely heard in Washington. To many Israelis, Trump appeared to be the long-awaited answer to a question that had haunted successive governments.

Yet recent events have revealed something far more important than the details of any particular agreement with Iran. They have revealed that the problem was never Bush. It was never Obama. It was never Biden. And it is not even Trump.

The problem is the assumption itself.

Israel spent years searching for the American president who would finally view Iran exactly as Israel does. Countries have allies. They have partnerships. They have shared interests. But even the strongest alliance cannot erase a simple reality: no nation will ever view another nation’s survival with the same urgency as its own. That is not a flaw in the alliance. It is the nature of alliances themselves.

The United States has global commitments, economic interests, electoral pressures, military calculations, and strategic concerns that extend far beyond the Middle East. Sometimes those interests align closely with Israel’s. Sometimes they diverge. American presidents—whether Republican or Democrat—ultimately make decisions through the lens of American interests. Sometimes those interests align closely with Israel’s. Sometimes they do not.

That reality may be frustrating, especially when the stakes involve a threat as grave as a nuclear Iran. But it is also a reminder that Israel’s security cannot rest upon the assumption that another country, however friendly, will always reach the same conclusions at the same moment. The challenge for Israel is not to find an American president who thinks exactly like an Israeli prime minister. The challenge is to ensure that Israel’s strategy remains effective even when they do not.

The irony is that Trump’s latest decisions may have accomplished something decades of debate never could. They have forced Israelis to confront a question that has lingered in the background for years.

What if the search itself was misguided?

For many friends of Israel, recent developments have been deeply disappointing. Yet they also clarify something that has been visible for years: even Israel’s closest allies will not always see the Iranian threat through the same lens that Israel does. The deeper question is not whether America remains a valuable ally. It unquestionably does. The deeper question is whether Israel has spent too many years waiting for Washington to become the decisive actor.

That is not a criticism of the alliance. It is a question about strategy. And recent events suggest it is a question worth asking.

Over time, an extraordinary amount of diplomatic energy was devoted to influencing Washington’s decisions. Israeli leaders found themselves lobbying presidents, persuading congressmen, addressing international audiences, and waiting for political shifts inside America.

There is a subtle difference between treating an ally as a force multiplier and treating that ally as the missing pillar of your strategy. The former strengthens independence. The latter risks undermining it. The lesson is that Israel must stop treating American intervention as the missing piece of its Iran strategy. American support should be viewed as a force multiplier, not a prerequisite. A welcome reinforcement, not the foundation upon which everything else rests.

The uncomfortable truth is that the search for an American solution to the Iranian problem has now spanned multiple administrations, multiple parties, and multiple decades. At some point, a pattern ceases to be a temporary disappointment and becomes a strategic lesson.

The Jewish people did not survive empires, inquisitions, pogroms, terrorism, and generations of hostility because history was kind to them. They survived because, time and again, they confronted challenges that others considered impossible and found a way through them. The modern State of Israel is itself a testament to that tradition, built against the advice of experts, defended against overwhelming odds, and strengthened through crises that many predicted would break it.

None of this means Israel should turn away from its allies. Strong alliances remain one of Israel’s greatest strategic assets. But the history of the Jewish people offers a lesson that is both sobering and encouraging: when the decisive moment arrives, Jewish security has always rested first upon Jewish resolve. For years, Israeli leaders searched for the American president who would finally solve the Iranian problem. Perhaps the real lesson of this moment is that they were searching in the wrong place.

If there is one nation that has repeatedly demonstrated the ability to confront threats that others considered insurmountable, it is Israel.

The Iranian threat may be formidable. Yet if the last several thousand years have demonstrated anything, it is that the Jewish people have a remarkable habit of outlasting predictions, defying expectations, and overcoming challenges that others considered impossible.

Perhaps the real opportunity hidden within this moment is that it reminds Israel of something it once understood instinctively: allies are valuable, but the ultimate guarantor of Jewish security has always been the Jewish people themselves.