President Trump’s tweet (December 1), in which he called on Israel to act cautiously in Syria and conveyed an expectation that it “not interfere,” is not an offhand remark. It reflects a clash between his vision for the Middle East and Israel’s security needs.
For Trump, the new regime in Damascus — even if its leaders appeared until recently on the U.S. terrorism list — is an asset. As long as it distances itself from Iran and aligns with the American–Saudi axis, it can be presented as a “success story” of regime change and regional stabilization. Hence the implicit demand of Israel: not to disrupt the reconstruction and not to complicate the experiment he is leading.
For Israel, Syria is a live border, not a visionary project. Freedom of action there has become a pillar of its security strategy. When the White House signals “best not to interfere,” the implication is pressure to reduce activity, while from Israel’s perspective the threat is far from disappearing. Israel is required to adjust itself to an American geopolitical experiment whose outcomes are uncertain.
More broadly, Trump views the Middle East as a space of deals between strong leaders, not as a theater of historical conflicts. He prefers a loose regional architecture, with the Washington–Riyadh axis at its center and around it Israel, Egypt, the UAE, and to some extent Turkey and Syria. Within this structure, Gaza is also integrated — through a reconstruction process and multinational mechanisms mediated by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar. From his standpoint, Israel has already “got what it wanted”: support for the war and an agreement that returned hostages.
The danger is not a rupture with Washington, but a slide into a patron–client structure in which Israel’s role is to ratify the “grand deal” and adjust its freedom of action to American needs. The lesson from the tweet is clear: Israel must define for itself and for the United States clear red lines — foremost among them preserving freedom of action against threats, as a vital principle that is not up for negotiation.
President Trump’s tweet (December 1), in which he called on Israel to act cautiously in Syria and conveyed an expectation that it “not interfere,” is not an offhand remark. It reflects a clash between his vision for the Middle East and Israel’s security needs.
For Trump, the new regime in Damascus — even if its leaders appeared until recently on the U.S. terrorism list — is an asset. As long as it distances itself from Iran and aligns with the American–Saudi axis, it can be presented as a “success story” of regime change and regional stabilization. Hence the implicit demand of Israel: not to disrupt the reconstruction and not to complicate the experiment he is leading.
For Israel, Syria is a live border, not a visionary project. Freedom of action there has become a pillar of its security strategy. When the White House signals “best not to interfere,” the implication is pressure to reduce activity, while from Israel’s perspective the threat is far from disappearing. Israel is required to adjust itself to an American geopolitical experiment whose outcomes are uncertain.
More broadly, Trump views the Middle East as a space of deals between strong leaders, not as a theater of historical conflicts. He prefers a loose regional architecture, with the Washington–Riyadh axis at its center and around it Israel, Egypt, the UAE, and to some extent Turkey and Syria. Within this structure, Gaza is also integrated — through a reconstruction process and multinational mechanisms mediated by Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar. From his standpoint, Israel has already “got what it wanted”: support for the war and an agreement that returned hostages.
The danger is not a rupture with Washington, but a slide into a patron–client structure in which Israel’s role is to ratify the “grand deal” and adjust its freedom of action to American needs. The lesson from the tweet is clear: Israel must define for itself and for the United States clear red lines — foremost among them preserving freedom of action against threats, as a vital principle that is not up for negotiation.