Israel faces its most important test since 1973.

And it begins in Washington.

Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump during the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020 (photo: The White House/Wikipedia)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay by Guy Goldstein, a third-generation Holocaust survivor.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

Israel has survived the October 7th massacres, the tunnels, the rockets, the northern front against Hezbollah, the propaganda storms, and the quasi-legal campaigns.

It has survived every form of kinetic and informational assault.

But the most dangerous phase of the war may unfold far from the battlefield. It will unfold in Washington, inside rooms where the real leverage of this conflict now sits. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s upcoming visit to the United States to meet President Donald Trump on December 29th will determine whether the achievements Israel earned through war are defended or surrendered across a negotiating table.

The danger is not abstract. It arrives through the political incentives surrounding the American president. Trump is not the architect of this pressure, but he is now the axis through which it operates. The Arab bloc knows he needs the ceasefire to succeed. They know the agreement carries his signature. They know a collapse lands on his record. They understand his instinct for a visible win. And they have shaped the diplomatic environment so that the only lever he can pull to protect his achievement is Israel’s prime minister.

Qatar, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan have never been so coordinated. They have agreed, explicitly and implicitly, on one message: If the ceasefire stalls, if its second phase does not begin, if Gaza does not move toward the Arabs’ preferred governance model, the failure is not on them; the failure is on Israel, and Israel is understood to be America’s responsibility.

In that framing, any breakdown becomes a political embarrassment for Washington and a personal humiliation for Trump, because the mediator is judged by whether he can deliver the party (Israel) seen as under his influence. Turkish officials have already warned that the deal will fail without strong U.S. pressure on Israel. This is not messaging; it is preparation.

Of course, these states are not protecting Palestinians. They are advancing their own ambitions in the land. Egypt wants control of its border with Gaza (Rafah) and Gaza’s gates. Qatar wants control of Gaza’s political file. Jordan wants a larger voice over Jerusalem. Turkey wants a military and symbolic footprint. Saudi Arabia wants to steer the political horizon. All of them want custodianship over the Palestinian cause because custodianship creates leverage, and leverage creates power.

Trump cannot force the Arab states to shift. They will not shift, and the world will always find a way to excuse that refusal.

The deeper problem is that Trump’s transactional foreign policy left the United States with less leverage over the Arab world than the Arab world now has over Washington. The Gulf holds the investment pipelines that much of the American economy depends on, the region holds many of the arms contracts sustaining America’s defense industry, and behind them stand China, Russia, and Iran waiting to fill any vacuum the United States creates.

In this landscape, Washington cannot threaten withdrawal, cannot threaten suspension, cannot threaten consequences. The leverage has flipped. The Arabs can say no. Trump cannot. Which leaves Netanyahu as the only leader Washington can pressure without strategic blowback.

None of these states have delivered their side of the bargain. They have not enforced Palestinian compliance. They have not secured disarmament. They have not enabled verification. They have not prevented violations. But they have converted these failures into diplomatic pressure directed at Jerusalem. If Palestinians do not comply, Netanyahu must be pressured. If the next phase is stuck, Netanyahu must concede. If the plan risks faltering, Netanyahu must move. This is the logic that will dominate the negotiating rooms.

All of this was on display at the Doha Forum in Doha, the capital city of Qatar. Speaker after speaker from Qatar, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Europe confidently explained that the United States had caused the wars in the region, abandoned its principles, mishandled diplomacy, supported dictators, empowered terrorists, destabilized entire populations, and failed its allies.

Hillary Clinton herself sat there saying the Trump Administration was “supporting Russia’s invasion of Ukraine” and that America had “abandoned core American values.” A former Secretary of State accusing the United States of siding with Vladimir Putin, in a Gulf monarchy, cheered on by dignitaries who owe their entire strategic security to American power. For a country that still imagines itself leading the free world, this was not subtle; this was the sound of the door closing.

Then came Trump’s representatives, each a key player in Trump (and particularly the emerging post-Trump) sphere. The representatives who were supposed to represent the American counterweight. Instead, they joined the pile on. Donald Trump, Jr. declared that America had launched “unnecessary wars” and spent “trillions of dollars for nothing.” American businessman and banker Omeed Malik said that America “got absolutely nothing” from Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. Ambassador to Turkey, Tom Barrack, told the room that every Western decision in the region since the Sykes-Picot Agreement of 1916¹ was a mistake.

These were not sharp critiques of policy; they were affirmations of a new status line: America breaks the world, the Gulf fixes it, and Europe apologizes for ever believing in Washington. The idea that the United States might have been the stabilizing force, the deterrent, the anchor that prevented these regions from eating themselves alive, was erased completely. And America’s own voices were the ones doing the erasing.

Here is the truth that many have been avoiding saying out loud. The United States walked into Doha already weakened and negotiating from a place of naked desperation. Everyone in that room knew it. Washington could not pressure a single Arab or Muslim partner. It could not move Qatar. It could not move Turkey. It could not move Saudi Arabia. It could only pressure Israel, because Israel is the only actor in the region that still responds to American leverage. And even that leverage is now fraying.

The Trump ceasefire plan was announced with great fanfare, but the United States could not force Hamas to accept even its basic terms. It could demand concessions from Jerusalem, but it could not demand compliance from Gaza. That imbalance is the entire story. If you can pressure your ally, but cannot pressure your adversary, you are not a superpower; you are a supplicant wearing the uniform of a superpower.

Every leader at the Doha Forum room sniffed the weakness. They saw the hunger for a diplomatic win, any win, even a fake one. And they treated the United States the way you treat a power that does not know it has already lost control of the board.

Qatar could not have scripted it better. They spent the entire weekend anointing themselves the indispensable mediators of every regional conflict. They boasted that “the United States only spoke to one side” during the Israel-Hamas war, and that Qatar had to “balance the Americans who did not understand the region.” The Qatari prime minister claimed that Israel bombed Doha without Trump’s approval, implying the attack happened while Qatar was conducting responsible diplomacy that Washington supposedly mishandled. He said Trump was “shocked,” “disappointed,” and drew a “red line.” Qatar the protector of peace. America the fumbling giant. Israel the rogue state. It was a masterclass in narrative theft.

Europe followed the path laid out for it. Spain, Norway, and the European Union representative praised Qatar and Saudi Arabia as moral leaders while scolding the United States for “inconsistent leadership” and “failing to uphold international law.” One European minister said the quiet part loudly, declaring that “the rest of us got it right this time,” meaning Europe and the Gulf understood the region while America did not. The Gulf smiled knowingly. Europe bent lower. The message was unmistakable: Europe is happier following Doha than Washington in the Middle East.

All of this would have been outrageous enough if America had shown even a hint of strategic awareness. Instead, American media personality Tucker Carlson nodded and laughed. Donald Trump, Jr. praised Qatar for “taking the hits for the greater good.” Omeed Malik described Qatar as a vital partner. Tom Barrack called Qatar a stabilizer. The American Right and Left both became set pieces in a regional ceremony announcing their own irrelevance. They validated the story that the United States has already surrendered its strategic role in the Middle East.

Here is the part that American isolationists cheering this humiliation refuse to see. Yes, America has scored big deals with the Gulf this year: weapons packages, liquified natural gas commitments, joint investment frameworks, tens of billions in contracts that the administration is waving around as proof that the United States is still central to the region. These are the headlines that make Washington feel triumphant for a week at a time.

But these deals are not proof of American influence; they are the opposite. They are the consolation prizes a declining power gets when its former partners no longer need it strategically but still find it useful transactionally. They are severance packages dressed up as victories.

The “America First” crowd celebrates these deals as if the United States is finally getting paid for staying out of wars. They believe retreat is freedom. They believe stepping back means shedding burdens. They believe letting the Middle East manage itself will liberate American strength.

This is a fantasy, a deadly one.

The United States does not get to walk away from the region without losing something enormous. The short term gains are bait. The long term cost is the entire architecture that made America a superpower.

America’s economic position is not supported by optimism. It is supported by Bretton Woods system² and the petrodollar, by the simple and brutal fact that the Middle East priced its oil in dollars because it needed American protection. Once that need disappears, so does the incentive. The safety of the dollar rests on the belief that the United States anchors the regional order. The irresistible magnetism of American debt rests on the belief that Washington can shape the political conditions that keep markets stable. You lose the Middle East, you lose that architecture. You lose that architecture, you lose the empire you pretend you do not have.

In Doha, the Gulf tore that foundation apart. They showed that mediation now runs through Doha and Ankara. They showed that Europe defers to Gulf natural gas and Gulf diplomacy. They showed that Iran has more regional leverage than Washington admits. They showed that Israel can be isolated without consequence. They showed that American voices will sit on stage and nod while the Gulf rewrites the regional story. The Middle East does not need America. That is the declaration. And the petrodollar does not survive a Middle East that does not need America.

Qatar closed the ceremony with its final gesture: It announced it would never pay to rebuild Gaza because “we will not rebuild what Israel destroyed.” Donald Trump, Jr. nodded. Omeed Malik nodded. Tucker Carlson nodded. Europe nodded. The United Nations nodded. And America, the country that built its prosperity on a regional role it now dismisses as an inconvenience, sat calmly while the Gulf declared that role over.

Certainly, Donald Trump, Jr.’s appearance there was not meaningless; it was symbolic. It was a signal that Gulf states believe they have proximity to American political power at the exact moment when that proximity can influence the shape of the next phase. In this region, access is leverage. Leverage becomes pressure. Pressure becomes policy. That is the environment Netanyahu is walking into.

Netanyahu’s upcoming visit is the moment when Trump’s appetite for a win, the Arab bloc’s appetite for strategic gains, and the international appetite for irreversible movement align into a single pressure front directed at the prime minister of Israel. The Palestinians contribute nothing. The Arab countries assume nothing. The vacuum of responsibility is filled by one leader alone, because the entire diplomatic structure has been designed so that Netanyahu is the actor who must absorb the cost.

If Netanyahu yields in Washington, the consequences will be felt for generations.

The hundreds of soldiers who fell on October 7th and in Gaza and Lebanon, the tens of thousands reservists who left their families, the entire country of Israel suffering two years of brutal war — all did not do so to see their victories dissolved in a negotiation thousands of miles away. Their sacrifice created facts on the ground that only Israel has the right to translate into security. If those facts are traded away under pressure, this will create a political force driven by disappointment and betrayal that will reshape the Israeli political landscape

Further, a forced concession will tell every hostile actor that Israel’s battlefield success can be reversed by outmaneuvering Washington. It will allow the militias to rebuild, the extremists to reorganize and the planners of the next massacre to operate under the belief that international diplomacy will save them from the consequences of their own aggression. Every border will feel it. Every community will live with the knowledge that the threat they fought to contain has been given space to regenerate.

Finally, if Netanyahu bends here, the campaign against Israel’s legitimacy will escalate. Its enemies will claim they have detached Israel from its greatest ally and proven that pressure works. They will treat this moment as the template for every future confrontation, replacing deterrence with expectation and replacing fear of Israeli strength with confidence in Israeli vulnerability.

Israel’s enemies have already succeeded in elevating Israel’s situation from a permanent terror threat to a permanent state of war. If Netanyahu were to capitulate (no matter what political spin he tries to put on it), this will escalate that trend further and ensure that Israel is forever in an existential war, which it is still never allowed to win.

Netanyahu is not the first Israeli leader to face a moment like this. David Ben-Gurion, the State of Israel’s founding prime minister, confronted foreign powers who tried to dictate the borders of a newborn state. Another prime minister, Golda Meir, faced American pressure in the shadow of catastrophe. There was also Menachem Begin, who stared down superpower demands when Israel’s very legitimacy was on trial. They rose to the moment because they understood what was at stake.

Now it is Netanyahu’s turn. His upcoming visit to Washington will reveal whether he carries that same clarity, that same resolve, that same understanding that Israel’s survival has always depended on leaders who refused to surrender victories won with the lives of their own people.

---

1. The Sykes-Picot Agreement was a 1916 secret treaty between the United Kingdom and France, with assent from Russia and Italy, to define their mutually agreed spheres of influence and control in an eventual partition of the Ottoman Empire.

2. The Bretton Woods system of monetary management established the rules for commercial relations among 44 countries, including the United States, Canada, Western European countries, and Australia, after the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement until the Jamaica Accords in 1976.