The unprecedented wartime symbiosis between U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu might not be all that it appears to be. This is not because of the like-mindedness of the two leaders.
It’s because their posture is not reflected in their respective civilian societies. In short, Americans and Israelis see the merit of the war effort very differently.
In a recent podcast, international-affairs analyst Walter Russell Meade posited that one of the strongest “cards” that the Iranian regime is holding is its belief that Americans are ambivalent about Trump’s undertaking. And that basically, they don’t have the appetite, let alone the stomach, for the war effort. At some point, perhaps soon, that lack of support will force Trump to wind down or to desist from the fighting.
Polling among Americans has shown that a majority of Americans oppose the war effort. The support for Trump and the attack on Iran comes from Republicans. However, as is happening more and more, Trump’s MAGA coalition is split, with isolationists opposing the war.
Democrats who loathe Trump and increasingly oppose Israel are lining up heavily against the war effort. This has manifested itself in the attempt to have Trump procure congressional approval before continuing the effort.
Both Democrats and isolationists on the right decry the cost of the war and putting U.S. soldiers into danger. They believe that Iran is not their fight or sphere of concern and that the resources now being used for the war should be applied domestically.
In short, they are wary of what they perceive to be yet another potential Middle East snare and abyss. While there might be sympathy for Iranian civilian protesters, such empathy does not rise to the level of conviction that a regime change in Iran is needed—and certainly not to the idea that the United States needs to be the one to facilitate such change.
A sense of the fragility of the American attitude towards the war arose in the wake of the killing of six U.S. soldiers by a drone attack in Kuwait. Maybe it was because of the announcement of the first casualties in the war. Still, widespread condolence and concern expressed for the loss might have reflected the worry that news like this could be the pretext for demanding that Washington cut back or back out.
Casualties are inevitable in conflict; however, a stoic recognition presupposes an understanding of the importance of the mission and the willingness to sacrifice in order to see it accomplished. Simply stated, that willingness does not apply to the majority of Americans.
By contrast, the attitude of Israelis is almost diametrically different. In what must be seen as the continuing lessons of Oct. 7, Israelis are no longer interested in managing the hostility of their adversaries.
Israeli society is like the proverbial New York conservative who was a liberal until he got mugged. We experienced a shock—a trauma that, to our credit, we internalized and did not try to dismiss or explain away.
Israelis understand that managing the aversion of its enemies is inviting conflict. They are no longer interested in mowing the lawn, but rather, in tearing up the sod. They take seriously and literally the calls for our death and destruction.
Israelis, in short, have rediscovered pro-activity and pre-emption, as well as the importance of putting them into action.
Israel has also benefited from three amazing circumstances. One has been the unbelievable empowerment that has come from the return of all of the hostages taken by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7, 2023. This great blessing was only achieved with power, effort and great resolve.
Apropos of resolve, Israelis have also been astounded by the bravery and agility of their soldiers. They have watched them rise not only as warriors but as paragons of awareness. Their understanding of the importance of their missions has been a source of enormous inspiration to the civilian population.
And the civilian population has risen as well, showing itself to be resilient, resolute and accepting of the burdens required to remove threats around them. In the case of Iran, it means getting out from under the proverbial “sword of Damocles” that has been hanging over them.
Part of the difference between the two societies might stem from different understandings of the aims and goals of the war. Americans hear “regime change” and hearken back to removing Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in 2003 and the quagmire that ensued.
Israelis are not focused as much on regime change as they are on defanging the current regime. It has been Iran’s ability to attack, directly and through proxies, that scares the Jewish state—and rightly so.
Trump might have set himself up for disappointment in calling for regime change. Netanyahu, on the other hand, will enshrine his legacy if he succeeds in removing the Iranian nuclear threat, destroying its missile program and delinking Iran from its former terrorist proxies spread throughout the Middle East.
Americans are wary of potential success as it has been defined for themselves. Israelis can smell it.
