Despite Israel’s welcoming stance towards the recent American strikes on the Houthis in Yemen, assessments in Tel Aviv suggest that Washington is quickly facing the failure of the “quick deal” principle adopted by the Trump administration. U.S. President Donald Trump has finally realized that swift solutions are impossible for such complex issues. Due to his publicly declared policy of isolation from the Middle East, the U.S. finds itself more deeply mired in its crises.
Chaim Goloventis, an expert on Middle Eastern affairs, lecturer at Bar-Ilan University, and instructor for security forces at the Netanya College, stated that “while the American attack on the Houthis represented a welcome shift in Tel Aviv, it also indicated a rapid acceptance of the failure of the ‘quick deal’ principle, which will have a long-term negative impact on the occupying state and future generations.”
In an article published on Walla, translated by Arabi21, Goloventis continued, “Israeli disappointment in the ineffectiveness of U.S. policy in the Middle East is not limited to the failure of recent strikes against the Houthis. It also stems from the rejection of Trump’s plan to displace Palestinians from Gaza, a plan that was met with a categorical refusal from all Arabs, even those considered close allies of the U.S. This revealed Trump’s proposals as hopeless ideas, and it culminated in separate negotiations behind Israel’s back with Hamas itself.”
He added, “I see no issue with negotiating directly with Hamas, the Houthis, or Hezbollah, as necessary, but it became clear that a billionaire like Trump had not yet learned what those raised in refugee camp alleys had known for a long time.”
Goloventis further explained, “The American strike on the Houthis indicates something went wrong in Washington, and Trump began to realize there are no immediate solutions to complex issues, especially in the Middle East, where he had declared a policy of isolation. At the same time, he waged a military campaign in Yemen, became deeply involved in the internal politics of Syria, Lebanon, and the Gulf states, and it’s difficult to imagine how he will withdraw U.S. forces from Syria and Iraq at this stage.”
He emphasized that “the American logic, and specifically Trump’s logic, struggles to understand, as his predecessors did, why any Palestinian side involved in the conflict would refuse to sign a deal that includes economic advantages, promising international investments, and a better life in luxurious towers overlooking the sea. This leads him to ask himself what the Palestinians, or ‘the native people’ as the Americans term them, want and why they prefer to continue eating taboon bread rather than submitting to any external dictates.”
Goloventis noted that “operationally, Trump’s envoys increasingly show that the Iranians, Hamas, the Houthis, Syrians, and Turks continue to brandish their swords and insist on doing so. Despite the harsh conditions in their countries, they still hold visions of national honor, blood, land, and revenge. This may push Trump to respond with relatively swift force and threaten greater force later, as is customary, but it will not be effective.”
He concluded by saying, “This American policy in the Middle East will leave negative strategic repercussions on the occupying state for generations to come, and the Middle East will, unfortunately, remain a global hotspot of turmoil, playing a key role in the ongoing conflict between the great powers. Therefore, an American administration will come and go, sometimes sympathetic to the occupying state, sometimes less sympathetic, and sometimes hardline towards it.”
He reiterated, “In the end, despite the current American support for the occupying state in terms of arms and finances, it is possible that at some point in the future, considering the cultural and value gap between the U.S. and the Middle East, the U.S. may once again decide to adhere to the ‘Monroe Doctrine’ principles, isolating itself from the region and leaving the occupying state to its fate. Consequently, Iran’s nuclear presence, along with Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and of course the Palestinians, will all remain challenges that Israel must continue to deal with as primarily unsolvable Israeli problems.”
