Deciphering Trump’s Iran Plan

Jewish Politics & Power is published every other week. Sign up for our newsletter for updates.

---

1. What could the Iran plan be?

It’s a guessing game. The entire world, and especially 92 million Iranians, have spent this past week trying to figure out what is going through the head of the leader of the free world.

President Trump, boisterous as always but at the same time enigmatic, seemed to be sending mixed signals. On the one hand, Trump issued stern and very clear warnings to the Iranian regime early on in the bloody standoff between its forces and hundreds of thousands of citizens who took to the streets to demand freedom and economic relief. “If Iran shots [sic] and violently kills peaceful protesters, which is their custom, the United States of America will come to their rescue,” Trump posted on Truth Social on January 2. He repeated his threat in the following days, doubling down and urging protesters to keep to the streets, promising that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY.”

At the same time, the president seemed to sound a cautious tone, insisting that he had yet to receive an “accurate number” of Iranians killed by the regime, even as reliable sources put the death toll in the thousands.

By the end of the week, and apparently after his special envoy Steve Witkoff received a text message from Iran’s foreign minister Abbas Araghchi, Trump changed his tone and put aside the threat of an imminent military strike in favor of praising the Iranian regime for heeding his warnings. “Iran canceled the hanging of over 800 people,” Trump said on Friday. “I greatly respect the fact that they canceled.”

Media reports have offered some clarity on Trump’s apparent about-face. For one thing, he heard from Israeli and Saudi leaders that an American attack would put them in danger if the Iranians retaliated. He also received messages from the Iranian regime that they’d be toning down their response to protests and halting executions. And finally, Trump learned from his own military leaders that an immediate attack on Iran wouldn’t necessarily deliver the desired toppling of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s regime and could ignite a broader regional war.

So is the attack off the table?

Not necessarily.

The gradual buildup of U.S. forces in the region indicates that the president wants to make sure he gets the “all” in “all options are on the table.” 

For the Iranian protesters, this could be too late. Demonstrations are dwindling, primarily due to the ruthless response of the regime. With thousands of casualties and many more arrests, the opposition movement is losing momentum.

Israel, still deep in the guessing game, is betting on a Trump attack. Israeli officials and intelligence officers have been briefing reporters and columnists that Trump has made up his mind and is planning an attack once the forces are ready, both offensively and also in a defensive posture to provide protection to American troops and to U.S. allies in the region.

This assessment may be based on top-level information Israel is privy to, but it also could be a reflection of Israel’s wishful thinking. A wide-ranging American military operation to overthrow the regime—whether it is a Maduro-style capture or a full war reminiscent of the operation that toppled Saddam Hussein—could be a win-win for Israel: It would deliver relief to the Iranian people, and at the same time eliminate Israel’s greatest military threat in the region.

2. A cautious Jewish community avoids pushing U.S. military action

While it is clear that an end to the Khamenei regime in Iran would be beneficial to the Iranian people and to Israel, and that American military intervention could be the most effective way of reaching this goal, it is hard for pro-Israel Americans to actually say that.

Why?

Because the last thing the Jewish community wants or needs is to be seen as pushing America to wage wars in the Middle East. It would not only play into the hands of every online and real-life antisemite out there, it would also be out of touch with what most Americans, and presumably many Jewish Americans, believe, which is that the United States should not intervene militarily in faraway conflicts and that Iran could be America’s next quagmire.

AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, chose a cautious route: In their public statements and postings, they highlighted the atrocities of the regime, informed on a daily basis on the state of the protests, and showcased voices, such as that of commentator Van Jones, calling for the freeing of the Iranian people.

The American Jewish Committee listed measures it expects the international community to take to help the Iranian people, including condemning the actions of the regime, offering a safe harbor to Iranians fleeing their country and sustaining economic and political pressure on the leaders of Iran. The group stopped short of mentioning military action of any kind.

On the left, J Street, while expressing unequivocal support for the Iranian protesters, made it clear that “we oppose U.S. military action, which we are deeply skeptical would make a meaningful positive difference at the moment, and is more likely to result in unintended violent consequences.”

On the other side of the Jewish political spectrum, JINSA, a security-focused hawkish think tank, called on Trump to declare that America’s goal is regime change in Iran and that “once adequate U.S. military forces are in place, Trump should strike senior leaders and facilities that uphold the regime’s power, especially that of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps and Basij militia.”

3. Can Israel do away with U.S. aid?

Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s bombshell announcement earlier this month that he’d like to “taper off” the military aid Israel receives from the United States caught all players by surprise.

As a reminder, America provides Israel with $3.8 billion a year for purchasing military equipment from the U.S. The 10-year Memorandum of Understanding signed during the Obama presidency will expire in two years. It can then be renewed as is, increased or decreased.

According to Netanyahu’s proposal, floated in an interview with The Economist, aid would be gradually reduced, until it zeroes out after 10 years. He explained that Israel can now stand on its own two feet. “We want to be as independent as possible,” Netanyahu said, adding that even after giving up U.S. aid he would still “fight for the loyalty and support of the American people.”

Why now?

Netanyahu cited the strength of Israel’s economy and its defense industries as the reason for weaning itself off American aid. But there’s more to it. As the world leader who has spent the most time with Trump, Netanyahu understands that a president bent on “America first” are largely reluctant to pour billions into the pockets of another nation, even a friendly and reliable ally. Instead of getting into a protracted fight with Trump over the size of the aid package, Netanyahu chose a preemptive move that would signal good faith and disarm any future opposition to providing Israel with needed aid.

But can Israel afford it?

It probably can. 

First, the plan suggests a gradual withdrawal, meaning that for the near future, there will be no shortage of funds. And second, Israel knows by now that with or without a long-term agreement, America will be there to help when needed. Joe Biden sent Congress an aid bill valued at nearly $20 billion during the Gaza war, above and beyond the annual allocation of $3.8 billion. Congress and any president, either Republican or Democrat, would likely do the same if Israel faces an existential threat.

Israel could also use the cut in aid to boost its own industry and to shift from being supported by the United States to launching joint projects that both sides will share equally.

Is it good for America?

Trump loves nothing more than not spending U.S. taxpayer dollars on foreign nations. So do most Republicans. Democrats, who are having a hard time approving aid to Israel as it is, would likely appreciate the relief offered by Netanyahu’s plan.

The only caveat is the impact on American defense industries. The aid to Israel is basically a gift to U.S. manufacturers, since Israel is obliged to spend all of it on purchasing American-made equipment and materials. But U.S. defense contractors aren’t likely to face a loss of income and jobs if aid to Israel is reduced. Israel will still need jet fighters, drones, missiles and ammunition, and it will keep on buying them from the United States regardless of where the money is coming from.

4. Midterm Dems and their views on Israel

What does the Democratic Party look like with the Gaza war largely over? Take a peek at the California race to replace Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the former House Speaker and a stalwart supporter of Israel.

Three candidates are vying for her seat in the Democratic primaries: Connie Chan, a member of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors;  Saikat Chakrabarti, formerly chief of staff to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez; and state senator Scott Wiener, who is Jewish. Chan and Chakrabarti have been critical of Israel and accused it of committing genocide in Gaza. Wiener has also been critical of the Netanyahu government and recently, facing pressure from his rivals, issued a statement making clear that now he, too, believes that Israel’s actions and statements by its leaders “qualify as genocide.”

This is only one example in one congressional district known to be left-leaning, but it is also indicative of a trend. A retiring pro-Israel Democrat is about to be replaced by a Democrat who believes Israel committed genocide. There is no countervailing race in which an anti-Israel Democrat is about to be replaced by a member of their party who is less critical.

5. Disbanding Betar

Last week, New York Attorney General Letitia James announced a settlement with Betar U.S., a Jewish extremist group, under which the organization will dissolve and no longer operate in New York State.

The AG cited numerous incidents of Betar inciting violence, celebrating the killing of Arabs, entering private property, reporting pro-Palestinian activists to immigration authorities and harassing Jewish students and activists who opposed Israeli actions. Members of the group even forced beepers on Muslim and pro-Palestinians New Yorkers, hinting at the Israeli military operation using beepers loaded with explosives against Hezbollah militants.

Betar accepted the settlement, but said that it denies any wrongdoing and that it represents “mainstream Zionism.” The ADL described Betar as an “extreme organization.”

The legal action against Betar, which was not met with any opposition from the Jewish community, still raises many questions. Here are a couple:

– If the mainstream Jewish community knew that Betar was a toxic group involved in violent activity, why didn’t anyone take action before New York’s AG took on the issue?

– And now that AG James has taken appropriately severe measures against a right-wing Jewish group that harassed pro-Palestinian activists and celebrated the killing of Arabs, will there be similar actions against extremists on the other side who harassed pro-Israeli students and celebrated the killing of Jews?