Trump's Israel Aid Decision Could Shake Gulf Confidence in US Commitments

The potential withdrawal of American military support from Israel is creating uncertainty in the Middle East, particularly among Gulf states. Arman Mahmoudian, a research associate at the University of South Florida’s Center for Strategic and Diplomatic Studies, told The Jerusalem Post on Wednesday that even the prospect of Washington ending its aid without prior coordination with Jerusalem could undermine confidence in the United States as a reliable regional partner.

US President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he had reached an agreement with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to end Washington’s annual $4 billion in aid to Israel after the current year. This timeline is significantly shorter than the one Netanyahu proposed in a January interview with The Economist, in which he suggested a phased reduction over the next 10 years.

Mahmoudian noted that Israeli officials, including Netanyahu, have long advocated for reducing Israel's dependence on American assistance. He explained that the argument for greater independence is that it would not only reduce reliance on Washington but also ease the political and diplomatic pressure the United States has historically exerted on Israel. The expert added that the sudden announcement was not a complete departure from Netanyahu’s approach and suggested that the move may have been coordinated between the two governments.

The perception of this decision in the region will depend heavily on how it is framed. If Gulf states believe the agreement was made months ago and was suggested by Netanyahu, Washington could preserve its image as a reliable partner. However, if the decision is viewed as a unilateral move by Washington, made without coordination or despite Israel's continued need for assistance, it would send a very different message to the region.

The Middle East may view a surprise end to assistance for its most important strategic ally as a cause for concern regarding Washington’s long-term commitments. Adding to the uncertainty, Trump did not clarify whether the announcement would affect the 10-year Memorandum of Understanding that sets the framework for US military assistance. Although this agreement is not legally binding, any changes to the terms would require congressional involvement rather than being decided solely by the two leaders.

Washington’s recent actions in the region will also influence how this announcement is received. Mahmoudian pointed to the treatment of the Syrian Democratic Forces, which has faced considerable uncertainty regarding American commitments during Turkish military operations and amid pressure from Damascus. He also noted that Washington’s relatively passive approach toward certain phases of the Saudi-Houthi conflict could contribute to a perception that the US is reducing its willingness to engage in regional security affairs.

Taken together, these developments could lead regional actors to interpret a unilateral reduction in aid to Israel as another indication of a broader American strategic retrenchment. However, many in the region are aware that the announcement is linked to American domestic politics, coming just before the midterm elections. Trump may have intended to appeal to segments of his political base that are increasingly dissatisfied with US involvement in Middle Eastern conflicts.

Some members of the Make America Great Again movement have become critical of Israel, accusing it of misleading the president, who campaigned on a promise to avoid foreign interventions, into believing Iran could be easily defeated. Polls indicate that most Americans oppose the war, which has driven up gasoline prices and pushed down Trump's approval ratings. A Quinnipiac University poll in June found that 48% of voters and 66% of Democrats believe the US is too supportive of Israel, up from 16% and 20% respectively in 2017.

Mahmoudian concluded that regional governments may view the announcement primarily as a political maneuver designed to appeal to American voters rather than a fundamental shift in foreign policy. He stated that much depends on whether Trump follows through with the decision and whether Congress supports its implementation. Until these questions are answered, it is difficult to determine if this represents a genuine strategic shift or simply a reflection of domestic political considerations.