On February 28th, Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Iran by the American aviation, jointly with his Israeli counterpart. For the first time, the United States carried out a joint offensive military action with the state of Israel. Apart from the political proximity of Trump and Netanyahu, what are the profound reasons that led to such a major shift in American policy?
We asked the question to the American-Palestinian historian Rashid Khalidi. Holder of the Edward Said chair at Columbia University, (The Empire of Blindness: The United States and the Middle East, Actes Sud, 2004), he has just published in French “100 Years of War against Palestine” (Actes Sud, 2026), a narrative both scholarly and personal about the Palestinians’ confrontation with Zionism, its colonial and imperialist supports, and a sharp critique of successive Palestinian leaderships, incapable of achieving self-determination for their people.
In your book, you document very precisely the support of successive American governments for the expansionist policy of Israeli governments. We understand the advantage it brings to the Israeli side, but less so for the United States, which has much broader strategic and economic interests. How does the historian you are explain this permanence?
Rashid Khalidi: American support for Israel has fluctuated greatly over time. Initially, and until after World War II, it was simply sympathy from many Americans for the Zionist idea, often for religious reasons. At the beginning of the 20th century, the United States was a majority Protestant country, and the literal reading of the Bible teaches that this country – to Palestine – belongs to the Hebrews, hence to the Jews. But the driving force, the one pushing for the establishment of a state for the Jews in the Palestine for which it had a mandate from the League of Nations, is the United Kingdom. We must acknowledge that the Zionist movement has worked well in the United States, first convincing the Jewish community, then the Christians. They have become a strong lobby. Consequently, U.S. support is primarily due to the fact that it is a domestic issue, with a strong current of public opinion.
This changes in 1948, after the first war between Israel and the Arab countries. The Pentagon discovers a “strong man,” the Israeli army, and begins to consider the country as a possible ally. In the 1960s, the Lyndon Johnson administration, initially focused on Vietnam, begins to consider including Israel in its strategy against the communist bloc. He is the one who authorizes the sale of the most sophisticated weapons of the time, such as the F4 Phantom fighter. From that moment, Israel begins to become an ally. An alliance that will strengthen in the 1970s, after the Six-Day War and Israel’s victory over the allied Arab countries (Egypt, Syria, Jordan), then the October War of 1973.
But the United States also has powerful historical allies, such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran. How do you explain the shift from supporting Israel to President Trump’s complete alignment with the Netanyahu government?
The shift has occurred over time. Johnson did things Kennedy refused to do. Nixon did things Johnson refused, such as granting annual military aid (now $4 billion a year), after 1973 and the October War. There were internal reasons, but also strategic ones, as Israel opposed to the Arab nationalist regimes allied with the USSR during the Cold War. At that time, allies like Saudi Arabia, totally dependent on America for their external and internal security, could not refuse anything to the United States.
In 1983, Ronald Reagan concluded a formal military alliance. By the late 1980s, it was the most armed country in American weaponry!
But it is especially after September 11, 2001, and the attack on the World Trade Center in New York that a major political shift occurred. The Americans could have considered themselves attacked by an organization – Al-Qaeda based in Afghanistan – and destroyed it. But they declared a “war on terror.” Israel succeeded in getting the United States to adopt its narrative: that of a vast terrorist conspiracy connecting internationally. “The war on terror” is a concept of Netanyahu’s, which subsequently allows the encompassing of Israel’s war against the Palestinians, against Iran, and the war against Hezbollah.
This is a very important change. Israel could count on significant support from large segments of the American population, but also on the lever of strategic interests as defined by the Washington administration. And it was not just about the fight against terror, but also about the huge purchases of American weapons. Because these allow the acquisition costs of materials, such as F-35 planes, to be reduced by the United States Armed Forces. Since then, there has even been an intertwining of military industries between America and Israel, developing joint programs, such as the massive use of artificial intelligence on the battlefield.
The influence of the Zionist lobby in Washington is often mentioned, and it is a reality, but the most powerful pro-Israel lobby is the military-industrial complex, denounced by President Dwight Eisenhower in the 1950s, as it encompasses not only arms manufacturers but also military staff and elected officials in Congress.
Does the presidency of Donald Trump bring something new?
President Trump is a man with few principles. He dislikes taxes, hates everything “woke,” but is fiercely attached to “tariffs.” As for the Middle East, he is surrounded by close associates who are fully convinced of the Israeli narrative, and he also has a great admiration for “strength” in international relations. For the rest, he bargains. For him, Israel is an asset because it possesses “strength” and allows him to use threats jointly with Israel. He is also convinced that Iran threatens the United States, which is Netanyahu’s narrative, but turns out to be false. Iran is a threat to Israel, that’s true, but it’s different.
Other presidents before him had avoided this trap. Obama, Biden tried negotiations, even reached an agreement, which certainly did not satisfy Netanyahu, but did not engage America in a war. Trump, on the other hand, wants to triumph, to appear as “the strong one” in international relations. And that, is new.
But the American public opinion does not follow him at all. The alliance with Israel is heavily criticized by the left, but also by the racist and anti-Semitic far right. Can this change influence foreign policy?
R. K .: Until about fifteen years ago, there was not much support for the Palestinians in American public opinion. Then it evolved greatly among Democrats, who are not very left-wing for the most part. The latest polls show that almost 80% of Democratic voters have more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Israelis. They are against Israel’s wars on Gaza and also against Iran.
The pressure from the electoral base on the Democratic apparatus is beginning to be felt. Presidential candidates, like California Governor Gavin Newsom, have announced their decision not to accept money from AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the main pro-Israel lobbying group. They are still friends of Israel, but they are afraid of their base’s reaction. And 47 Democratic senators recently voted to stop arms deliveries to Israel. This had never happened before!
This change has also started to manifest on the right, and not only in the sphere of racist and anti-Semitic activists who criticize “Israel’s war.” It began with young people who no longer rely on traditional media like CNN, the New York Times, or Fox News, and who were impacted by the Gaza war images. Over 50% of young Republican voters show more sympathy for the Palestinians than for the Israelis. Among those who are fifty or older, you have to look for the traditional support for Israel.
Moreover, a significant portion of voters who had voted for Trump out of opposition to foreign wars, who expected him to focus on domestic issues, on the economy, who are neither fanatics, racists, nor anti-Semites, are telling him: “You are not keeping your promises.” It will take time for the Republican machine to integrate this, but it will appear sooner or later.
Can this change the direction of U.S. foreign policy? In the short term, no! The political, military, media, and economic elites staunchly cling to Israeli theses: security for Israel, military alliance in the fight against terrorism. Nothing will change for them.
