Ko se bližajo izraelske volitve, Trumpovi svetovalci vidijo priložnost, ki presega Netanjahujevo.

U.S. President Donald Trump endorsed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday, a move that divides the White House leadership and signals a complex dynamic ahead of Israel’s general election scheduled for Tuesday, October 27. While Trump publicly backed the incumbent, citing the necessity of stable relations, several of his closest advisers privately opposed the intervention, arguing that the president should remain neutral in the Israeli political process. The endorsement follows weeks of hesitation and highlights internal friction regarding how the United States should engage with Israel’s future government, particularly concerning ongoing conflicts in Iran, Syria, and Lebanon. The split within the administration centers on Vice President J.D. Vance, who explicitly declined to follow Trump’s lead. In an interview with journalist Mark Halperin on Monday, Vance stated that he was neither attacking nor endorsing Netanyahu. He emphasized that he prefers to stay out of Israeli elections and is currently focused on the upcoming U.S. midterm polls. Vance noted that he endorses American candidates and that is where his attention lies. This stance marks a departure from his actions in April, when he supported former Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, who subsequently suffered a landslide defeat to Peter Magyar. Sources indicate that Vance and other senior aides have grown disillusioned with Netanyahu following the recent war with Iran. These officials believe Netanyahu’s pre-war assessments presented to the White House were mistaken, raising doubts about whether he remains the optimal partner for achieving Trump’s regional ambitions. Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu is described by one adviser as knowing "the devil he knows," reflecting the president’s lack of personal familiarity with other Israeli candidates. Despite the private dissent, the public endorsement is viewed by some U.S. officials as a strategic win-win for Trump. If Netanyahu retains power, either through victory or as a caretaker, Trump can claim credit for rescuing him politically, potentially leveraging that goodwill to extract concessions. Conversely, if Netanyahu loses and his opponents form a government, the new leaders would still have strong incentives to cultivate good relations with the U.S., rendering Trump’s support for their rival a minor footnote in history. Underlying the political maneuvering are specific policy frustrations that have driven the rift between the White House and the Israeli government. Trump’s envoys Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have expressed dissatisfaction with Netanyahu’s reluctance to advance the implementation of the U.S. brokered Gaza peace plan. Similarly, U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Tom Barrack has criticized the Netanyahu government’s approach to Damascus and continued Israeli military operations in Syria. Following Israeli strikes on a base in Syria’s northern Idlib province, Barrack denounced the attack as an unnecessary escalation that did not advance regional stability. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and his team maintain a generally better relationship with Netanyahu but share concerns regarding the West Bank and Lebanon. Rubio’s staff believes Israel could do more to strengthen the Lebanese government and has expressed frustration over Netanyahu’s failure to curb settler attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank. Several U.S. officials suggest that a new Israeli government lacking Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners might prove easier to work with diplomatically. The election outcome will directly influence the trajectory of U.S. Middle East strategy. Once both the Israeli election and the U.S. midterms conclude, Trump faces a critical decision regarding whether to join Netanyahu in another major military operation against Iran. Netanyahu is eager to proceed, but the composition of the new Israeli government could affect the timing or likelihood of renewed large-scale fighting. Beyond immediate military considerations, Trump aims to pursue an ambitious diplomatic agenda that includes implementing the Gaza peace plan, brokering deals between Israel and Lebanon and Syria, and securing a historic Israeli-Saudi peace agreement. Progress on these goals depends heavily on who governs Israel and the nature of the coalition emerging from Tuesday’s vote. Polling data released prior to the election indicates shifting dynamics in Israel. A final poll by Maariv showed the opposition bloc widening its lead over Netanyahu’s camp. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, speaking on a weekend program, argued that the country needs a change in its approach to settler violence in the West Bank. Olmert also contended that decisions regarding further military action against Iran should be based on intelligence rather than electoral politics. He discussed how the U.S. midterms could affect the bilateral relationship, emphasizing the need for a shift in security and democratic approaches. The backdrop for these tensions includes the Trump administration’s continuation of arms sales to Israel since January 2025, despite the ongoing conflict in Gaza. The administration has also engaged in a direct conflict with Iran and intensified pressure on the International Criminal Court. Vance, viewed as a potential 2028 presidential candidate, has become a symbol of growing discontent within the Republican Party over unconditional support for Israel. This sentiment has been amplified by the economic impact of the U.S.-Israel war on Iran, which has raised costs for American consumers. Although Vance maintains that U.S. support for Israel should continue, he has faced skepticism from Jewish Republicans regarding his commitment to the alliance. In June, amidst Israeli opposition to an Iran ceasefire plan, Vance told Israel that it could not simply kill its way out of national security problems. He also warned Netanyahu’s cabinet against alienating Trump, referring to the president as the sole authority on such matters. The coming days will determine whether the current alignment holds or if a new political landscape emerges in Jerusalem.