Trump’s Transactional Diplomacy and the Stark Warning for Israel

The dramatic collapse of talks between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House was more than just a diplomatic spectacle—it was a warning. What began as a negotiation over rare-earth minerals ended with Trump publicly scolding Zelensky for “disrespecting” the United States, leaving Ukraine empty-handed.

For Israel, this episode should set off alarm bells. It raises an uncomfortable but urgent question: What happens if Israel finds itself in Ukraine’s position—desperately needing American support, only to discover that it now comes with a price tag? The Trump-Zelensky fallout reveals a disturbing shift in U.S. foreign policy: alliances are no longer based on shared values or strategic commitments, but on immediate transactional benefits. If Trump is willing to turn his back on a U.S. ally fighting an existential war, can Israel still assume that American support is unconditional?

The End of “Unbreakable Alliances”?

Israel’s security has long rested on two pillars: its own military strength and unwavering U.S. backing. But Trump’s approach to Ukraine—demanding economic concessions in exchange for security support—suggests that even America’s closest partners may be expected to “pay their way” in a second Trump term.

During his first administration, Trump already signaled his preference for transactional diplomacy. He demanded that NATO allies increase their defense spending, questioned security guarantees for South Korea, and even hinted that U.S. support for Israel wasn’t automatic, stating in 2020 that Israel “would be in big trouble” without him. Now, after his latest clash with Ukraine, there is growing concern that his America First doctrine could extend to Israel in new and unpredictable ways.

The lesson from the Zelensky debacle is clear: alliances with the U.S. may no longer be based on mutual interest and shared democratic values. Instead, they could be contingent on whether the ally can offer Trump something tangible in return.

A Deal-Making Approach to Middle East Diplomacy

Nowhere is this shift more consequential than in Israel’s relationship with its Arab neighbors. Trump brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Gulf states, but what happens if his transactional mindset alters the trajectory of these agreements?

For example, Saudi Arabia has signaled interest in normalizing ties with Israel but has also demanded significant U.S. security guarantees in return. Would Trump agree to such a deal only if Israel makes major concessions to the Palestinians? Could he use military aid as leverage to force Israel into an agreement that might not align with its security needs?

If Ukraine was expected to barter its natural resources for U.S. support, why wouldn’t Israel be expected to do the same—perhaps by making territorial or political concessions in exchange for continued military aid?

The Iran Question: A New Realignment?

For Israel, Iran remains the most pressing security threat. Trump withdrew from the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal) in 2018, but that doesn’t mean he would maintain the same level of confrontation in a second term. What if Trump sees a business opportunity in reopening negotiations with Tehran, offering economic incentives in exchange for a weaker nuclear deal?

The world just saw Trump walk away from Ukraine despite its ongoing war with Russia. If Iran advances its nuclear program or escalates its proxy wars in the region, can Israel trust that Trump will stand firm against Tehran? Or will he, in his deal-making style, view Iran as just another adversary with whom he can negotiate?

If Trump were to prioritize economic gains over strategic commitments, Israel could find itself facing a major security crisis with fewer guarantees of U.S. intervention.

Israel’s Bipartisan Dilemma

Beyond Trump himself, the bigger concern is how U.S. support for Israel is shifting in Washington. While Israel has historically enjoyed bipartisan backing, Trump’s policies have contributed to a widening political divide.

Progressive Democrats have grown more vocal in their criticism of U.S. military aid to Israel, and Trump’s treatment of Ukraine could provide fresh arguments for those who want to reassess aid to all allies. If U.S. foreign policy becomes purely transactional, Israel may face growing scrutiny over whether its aid package—$3.8 billion annually—is still justified.

To counter this, Israel must work to maintain bipartisan support. While Trump may be a strong ally today, an over-reliance on him could prove risky in the long run. The next administration—whether Democratic or Republican—may not share his approach, and Israel needs to ensure that its security isn’t dependent on the whims of a single leader.

The Hezbollah and Hamas Threat: A Future Test Case?

The most immediate test of U.S. commitment could come not from Iran directly, but from its proxies—Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza.

If Hezbollah escalates attacks on Israel’s northern border or if Hamas reignites a large-scale conflict, Israel may require urgent U.S. support, both militarily and diplomatically. Under previous administrations, that support was near-automatic. But under a Trump 2.0 presidency, would Israel need to “offer” something in return? Would Trump demand trade deals, Israeli concessions, or even financial contributions to secure continued American backing?

Ukraine’s experience suggests that nothing can be taken for granted.

What Israel Must Do Next

The Trump-Zelensky clash is not just about Ukraine—it’s a sign of how the U.S. is redefining its role in global security. Israel must take proactive steps to ensure that it doesn’t find itself in the same precarious situation:

1. Diversify Security Partnerships – Strengthening ties with India, the UAE, and European powers will be essential if U.S. support becomes more conditional.
2. Reduce Military Aid Dependence – While U.S. assistance remains crucial, Israel should continue bolstering domestic defense production and exploring alternative funding mechanisms.
3. Maintain Bipartisan Support in Washington – Investing in strong relationships with both Republican and Democratic leaders is critical to ensuring long-term stability.
4. Prepare for a More Transactional U.S. Approach – Future U.S. administrations—Republican or Democrat—may adopt elements of Trump’s deal-making strategy, requiring Israel to rethink how it secures American backing.

Conclusion: A Dangerous Precedent

The Trump-Zelensky debacle is not just a diplomatic footnote—it’s a case study in how alliances can unravel when they become purely transactional. Israel, despite its deep ties with the U.S., must recognize that loyalty is no longer guaranteed.

The great risk is assuming that past commitments will hold in the future. If Ukraine, a U.S. ally in an existential war, can be sidelined for failing to strike the right deal, Israel must prepare for a world where U.S. support may come with new conditions.

The ultimate lesson? Israel must never find itself in Ukraine’s position—pleading for help from an America that now asks, “What’s in it for us?”