President Trump’s approach to Iran exposes competing factions within the Republican Party, and how the Democrats might manipulate it. The topic of U.S. support for Israel is sure to follow suit.
I think the comparison between American politics and Israeli politics is overstated. Israel has a fragmented multi-party system where small parties built around single issues can hold disproportionate power. The United States simply doesn’t operate that way. Despite internal disagreements, the two major parties still have clear core agendas that voters broadly understand.
As for Trump and the Iran war, there’s also a key point missing. Trump did campaign on avoiding endless wars, but he also repeatedly promised that Iran would never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. What we’ve seen is him trying to honor both commitments. He delayed repeatedly, giving Iran additional time and opportunities to change course before acting.
Once Iran continued its aggression, the decision to strike its missile and nuclear infrastructure followed directly from that promise.
Some differences of opinion inside a party are normal — every coalition has them. But the idea that this represents a deep or destabilizing fracture seems exaggerated. Polling among MAGA voters, for example, shows overwhelming support for Trump’s approach.
In short, this looks less like a party in crisis and more like a president carrying out one of the central commitments of his campaign.
" ...an internal investigation within the Democratic Party found that former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ stance on Gaza and Israel’s war against Hamas cost her votes in the 2024 presidential election — meaning she was not pro-Israel enough."
But this is not at all what the linked Axios article says! The implication of the article is that the Biden administration was too pro-Israel, not that it was not pro-Israel enough. And it is no wonder it would conclude this, since the report quoted in the article was issued by the pro-Palestinian IMEU Policy Project.
So we don't really know yet, but what is clear is that there is no evidence yet of a report saying that Harris lost votes because Biden wasn't pro-Israel enough.
Only Trump know the checkmate move. We can only see the “pawns” that moved. There are simultaneous moves of additional elite moves (82 Airborne) and willingness to negotiate (JD) with a “new” regime. It could be a “Venezuela” type change, not a radical one but one that is peaceful and economically controlled by US.
I think the comparison between American politics and Israeli politics is overstated. Israel has a fragmented multi-party system where small parties built around single issues can hold disproportionate power. The United States simply doesn’t operate that way. Despite internal disagreements, the two major parties still have clear core agendas that voters broadly understand.
As for Trump and the Iran war, there’s also a key point missing. Trump did campaign on avoiding endless wars, but he also repeatedly promised that Iran would never be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons. What we’ve seen is him trying to honor both commitments. He delayed repeatedly, giving Iran additional time and opportunities to change course before acting.
Once Iran continued its aggression, the decision to strike its missile and nuclear infrastructure followed directly from that promise.
Some differences of opinion inside a party are normal — every coalition has them. But the idea that this represents a deep or destabilizing fracture seems exaggerated. Polling among MAGA voters, for example, shows overwhelming support for Trump’s approach.
In short, this looks less like a party in crisis and more like a president carrying out one of the central commitments of his campaign.
" ...an internal investigation within the Democratic Party found that former U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris’ stance on Gaza and Israel’s war against Hamas cost her votes in the 2024 presidential election — meaning she was not pro-Israel enough."
But this is not at all what the linked Axios article says! The implication of the article is that the Biden administration was too pro-Israel, not that it was not pro-Israel enough. And it is no wonder it would conclude this, since the report quoted in the article was issued by the pro-Palestinian IMEU Policy Project.
So we don't really know yet, but what is clear is that there is no evidence yet of a report saying that Harris lost votes because Biden wasn't pro-Israel enough.
If israel disappeared tomorrow, who would mourn and who would cheer?
Only Trump know the checkmate move. We can only see the “pawns” that moved. There are simultaneous moves of additional elite moves (82 Airborne) and willingness to negotiate (JD) with a “new” regime. It could be a “Venezuela” type change, not a radical one but one that is peaceful and economically controlled by US.