rewrite this content and keep HTML tags
Occupied Jerusalem- While the Gulf states are preparing to receive US President Donald Trump on an upcoming visit next week, new tensions are waving on the horizon that may disturb the atmosphere of this sensitive diplomatic tour.
The recent statements of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in which he threatened to strike Iran in response to the Houthi attack that targeted Ben Gurion Airport, sparked different reactions, whether inside Israel or in Washington.
The timing of the Israeli escalation appears to be not separate from the visit’s agenda, which is expected to be punctuated by huge strategic deals with Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Qatar. Trump is unlikely that scenes of a bloody escalation in the Gaza Strip or regional confrontations will overwhelm his visit, through which he seeks to confirm the security and economic partnership with his Gulf allies.
Calm the speech
An official American source reported that Trump may not find it necessary to visit Israel on his regional tour, which was understood in Tel Aviv as a sign of Washington’s inability to the tone of the escalation adopted by Netanyahu.
Accordingly, some strategic circles in Israel called for calming the speech and rebuilding bridges of coordination with Washington. A number of retired generals saw that Tel Aviv could not bear the consequences of a single confrontation with Iran, especially in light of its lack of explicit American support.
Sources in the Israeli security establishment expressed concern about the increasing gap in positions with the United States, especially in light of what Israel considers a direct and increasing threat to the Iranian nuclear program. She believes that the absence of public coordination between Netanyahu and Trump enhances the fears that Washington may proceed with an agreement with Tehran without sufficient guarantees for Tel Aviv’s security.
The readers’ readings and estimates of national security research centers indicated that Trump’s statements that followed Netanyahu’s threats carried clear messages, according to which Washington does not currently support any unilateral military step against Tehran, and that the American administration is working according to its strategic priorities that focus on avoiding escalation and payment of the path of nuclear negotiations.
This development was interpreted, according to them, in the Israeli strategic circles as a reminder of the importance of prior coordination with the United States in fateful issues, led by the Iranian nuclear file, and military strikes on Yemen that target the Houthi group and the future of the war on Gaza.
With Washington continued its efforts to conclude a new nuclear agreement with Tehran, analyst readings estimated that the American administration appears to be keen to contain tension and prevent the region’s slipping towards an open confrontation, at a time when Israel is seeking to ensure that these negotiations are not at the expense of its security and strategic interests.
Isolation of Israel
In the political circles, some former advisers to the National Security Council warned that the insecure decent escalation may lead to Israel’s diplomacy, especially if Tel Aviv is pushing towards a military confrontation at a time when the White House prefers dialogue and diplomacy, according to a correspondent of political affairs in the newspaper “Yediot Aharonot”, Etamar Aykher.
Aeman added that Netanyahu is betting on absolute American support, but the recent messages from Washington show increasing pragmatism that may not be in line with Israeli accounts. “Despite the tension, Tel Aviv still considers Washington its firing ally, and that coordination on the Iranian nuclear file will remain pivotal in bilateral relations.”
He estimated that the recent American statements aim to control the rhythm of Israeli moves, and not to break the strategic link, especially since there are closed channels for consultation that are still active between the two sides.
It seems that the current apathy between Tel Aviv and Washington is not the result of the moment, but rather an extension of a long historical context, as indicated by the editor of the Haaretz newspaper, Alef Ben, in his article entitled “There is nothing new in the east.”
Alof Bin Ben that Trump, despite his radical attempts to change the internal system in the United States, maintains the stability of traditional policy towards Israel, and allowed it wide freedom in Palestinian affairs, but he adhered to a basic rule: in major regional issues, the final decision remains for Washington.
disappointment
The Haaretz editor says that with Trump’s return, excessive optimism prevailed in Israel, thinking that American policy would identify with its vision, but soon hopes, as Trump maintained the traditional balance in the relationship. It indicates that Trump, despite his leniency with extremist steps such as the occupation of Gaza, is seeking to revive negotiations with Iran, unlike Netanyahu’s position, but rather his advisor to the national security who coordinated with Israel a plan to strike nuclear facilities.
“Ben” concludes that Trump, despite his impulsion and his lack, sometimes to the legal or moral sense, is not fundamentally different from those who preceded him to adhere to the interests of the United States first, and his refusal to turn Washington into a tool in the hands of Israel, whatever the relations between the two parties are close.
This reading is consistent with an estimate of a position issued by the National Security Research Center at Tel Aviv University, prepared by researchers Eddad Shavet and Sima Shin, who confirmed that Trump’s upcoming visit to the region cannot be separated from the negotiating path with Iran. The ongoing talks between Washington and Tehran are an attempt to avoid the military confrontation, although the fundamental gaps are still pending, and may deepen later.
Meanwhile, Israel appears outside the circle of actual influence in the talks, despite its adherence to its traditional position calling for the application of what it calls the “Libyan model” to Iran, that is, the complete dismantling of the nuclear program. But the current American approach, according to the same estimate, indicates a less strict and more inclined direction to negotiate and make partial concessions.
The same estimate stresses the need to activate coordination channels outside the political framework, especially between technical work teams that may contribute to influencing the details of the final agreement, especially related to Iranian nuclear infrastructure and international control mechanisms.
The researchers warn that any Israeli step understood as an attempt to thwart the agreement will face a sharp American rejection, and may negatively affect other strategic files of interest to Israel.