Raed Jarrar is the Advocacy Director of DAWN.
As Trump returned from the Middle East in mid-May, he carried with him a slew of new decisions in the name of his so-called "America First" foreign policy. To put it plainly, we may be witnessing the start of a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy that few thought possible in our lifetime: the decoupling of U.S. interests from Israeli national security.
The U.S.-Houthi (Ansar Allah) truce on May 6, as an example of this dynamic, did not happen in isolation. Rather, it reflects a new pattern whereby the administration is separating American and Israeli interests. Examples abound from this month alone, including normalization with Syria, negotiations with Iran and the Trump administration "cautioning" against Israeli spoiler attempts, and arrangements for releasing a U.S. prisoner of war from Gaza, which all proceeded through channels entirely independent from Israeli security frameworks. In some cases, Washington made these moves without any coordination with Israel. In each instance, U.S. policy was formulated with American interests distinctly separated from those of Israel.
For over half a century, Washington treated American and Israeli interests in the Middle East as inseparable twins, with the latter often defining those interests and prioritizing them in most cases. Our regional strategies were developed in lockstep, often subordinating broader stability and U.S. interests to Israeli security concerns. The current administration is shattering this paradigm, demonstrating repeatedly that these interests can be separated.
The case of Yemen is telling. During the most recent brief Gaza ceasefire, which excluded the Houthis, the group did not carry out a single strike in the Red Sea. When that agreement collapsed, attacks resumed immediately. Houthi leadership has been transparent about this connection, stating explicitly that their operations targeting Israel and Israel-bound ships are conducted solely in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza. By decoupling American maritime security from the Gaza genocide, the Trump administration advanced U.S. interests by removing its troops from harm's way after months of failed military engagements with the group, leaving Israel to deal with Houthi strikes targeting them as a result of their ongoing actions in Gaza.
Such decoupling challenges decades of Israeli exceptionalism deeply embedded in U.S. law and policy. The U.S. government has constructed an elaborate legal architecture that privileges Israel above all else—from unique, multi-billion-dollar funding arrangements outside normal foreign aid constraints to extraordinary technology-sharing agreements unavailable even to North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies. Most egregiously, Washington routinely violates its laws to maintain this exceptional relationship.
For over half a century, Washington treated American and Israeli interests in the Middle East as inseparable twins, with the latter often defining those interests and prioritizing them in most cases.
- Raed Jarrar
In December 2024, my organization helped Palestinian and Palestinian-American families file a lawsuit against the U.S. government, highlighting this shocking reality. The lawsuit demonstrates how the U.S. government has flagrantly disregarded the Leahy Law, which prohibits military assistance to foreign security forces that commit gross human rights violations. Despite overwhelming evidence of systematic atrocities by Israeli forces, the State Department crafted legal contortions that would never be tolerated for any other country to continue providing weapons and support to Israel. This lawsuit exposes that absurd contradiction at the heart of U.S. Middle East policy: creating laws to uphold human rights and international norms while carving out special exemptions whenever Israel violates them.
To be sure, no one should confuse a promising policy direction with a coherent strategy. At this stage, these developments appear to stem from Trump's personalized, transactional worldview and focus on domestic politics rather than a principled recalibration of America's approach to the region. His Middle East policy has always resembled a weathervane—spinning dramatically with the changing winds of personal relationships.
In that regard, observe his relationship with Netanyahu. This dynamic oscillates between lavish praise and bitter criticism—seemingly based on perceived personal slights rather than substantive policy disagreements. Yet even his relationships with regional dictators like Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) and Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi are not founded upon shared strategic vision but personal chemistry and mutual flattery. That such priorities are not sustainable undergirds their lack of strategic vision and vice versa.
Thus, Trump's volatility undermines the potential benefits of any decoupling doctrine vis-à-vis Israel. Effective diplomacy requires consistency and credibility—qualities largely absent from the current approach. Regional partners and adversaries alike cannot determine whether today's policy will resemble tomorrow, making durable agreements nearly impossible to secure. This dynamic has created a fire sale of sorts, in which personalized politics drive efforts to achieve major wins or the perception of them immediately—regardless of the potential future costs.
For those of us who have long advocated for a more balanced approach to the Middle East, these developments present a paradox. The direction is promising, but the driver is dangerously erratic.
We should acknowledge the potentially positive outcomes of this decoupling while maintaining clear-eyed skepticism about its origins. The pattern highlights that alternatives to lockstep alignment with Israel are possible, but their implementation requires strategic coherence that the current administration simply has not demonstrated.
The path forward requires institutionalizing the positive aspects of these shifts while pushing for the principled consistency and continuity necessary for lasting regional stability. The decoupling doctrine represents a potentially transformative break with previously failed policies, but realizing its promise demands more than personality-driven improvisation that changes with the president's mood.
