“Israel’s situation is worse than at any point since the state’s establishment… Netanyahu bet everything on Trump, and Israel lost at the roulette table.” The Ynet analysis now circulating across Israeli media is only one expression of a broader chorus. From Channel 12 to Israel Hayom, from opposition figures to coalition loyalists, from retired generals to television pundits, the message is nearly identical: Donald Trump abandoned Israel, humiliated its leadership, and surrendered to Iran. Even many of Trump’s Republican allies in the United States have adopted a similar refrain, arguing that the president blinked, folded, or betrayed a loyal partner at the moment of truth.

But this entire narrative—across the Israeli political spectrum, across the American commentariat, and across the global pundit class—misses the real strategic dynamics that shaped the outcome. The problem is not Trump’s personality, nor his rhetoric, nor his supposed appetite for humiliating allies. The problem is structural. It is rooted in the hard constraints of American domestic politics, the limits of US military power in a post‑Iraq era, and the economic fragility of a global system that cannot endure a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz. The critics are attacking the symptom. They are ignoring the underlying condition.

The Illusion of Presidential Choice

The dominant Israeli narrative assumes that Trump had a choice: escalate the conflict with Iran or capitulate. It assumes that a different president—more disciplined, more articulate, more loyal, more predictable—would have chosen escalation. It assumes that the United States could have fought a long war to reopen the Strait, destroy the IRGC’s capabilities, and restore deterrence. It assumes that Trump’s decision was a matter of will, not of structural necessity.

But this is a profound misreading of American strategic reality. No American president—Trump, Biden, Obama, Bush, or anyone else—would have........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)