“I’d certainly rather have a nuclear-armed Iran than communists running my country.”
Matt Walsh’s verdict on the Republican midterm defeat deserves a place in the next Israeli cabinet briefing on American politics. By communists, the conservative commentator meant Democrats. He considers their return to power a greater danger than an Iranian nuclear weapon.
Israelis who assume political friendship guarantees a shared assessment of danger should read that sentence carefully.
At Walsh’s own Daily Wire, Ben Shapiro reached a different conclusion. He defended confronting Iran while criticizing the administration’s conduct of the war, alongside its failures on affordability and corruption.
Two colleagues, two assessments of what went wrong. Our politicians should bear that disagreement in mind before offering another blanket assurance about the American Right.
JD Vance's post-election remarks echo Rahm Emanuel's warning to Israel
The concern extends well beyond commentators. Vice President JD Vance’s post-election statement has given new force to a warning Rahm Emanuel delivered to me in our Tel Aviv studio in July.
“You have an America problem,” Emanuel said when I challenged him about hostility toward Israel inside the Democratic Party. When I pressed him about how much blame he assigned to Benjamin Netanyahu, he cited the prime minister’s long tenure and said: “I could pick a taxi driver, but I don’t think that taxi driver is responsible for it.”
I objected and said the relationship carried responsibilities on both sides. American politicians also choose which prejudices to challenge and which constituencies to indulge.
Emanuel was right to insist that Israel’s difficulties crossed party lines. Vance has now made that argument considerably harder to dismiss. He blamed the Iran war for the Republican defeat.
Citing a pollster who had questioned defecting Trump voters, Vance listed ending the war and addressing the cost of living among the steps that could bring them back. Another was: “Change our relationship to Israel.”
There was Israel, alongside Americans’ household bills, in an explanation of why their government had failed them.
A country whose leaders have invested so heavily in Republican friendship should take that seriously. The photographs with President Donald Trump will still look excellent on the office wall. Their value as a guide to American policy is another matter.
Vance and Emanuel have different records and proposals. Emanuel has advocated ending military aid and sanctioning those who finance settlements. Vance’s post reports voters’ demand for change without specifying an Israel policy of his own.
The overlap lies in the political pressure they are identifying. Support for Israel is being subjected to a harsher test of what Americans receive in return, and politicians in both parties are responding.
US voters have a right to question the costs and benefits of military alliances
There is a serious American argument here. An alliance carries costs. Voters are entitled to ask what military commitments achieve and whether their leaders understood the risks before making them.
A parent struggling with the grocery bill deserves a clear answer. Israelis asking Americans to take our security concerns seriously owe their domestic concerns the same attention.
That makes the distinction between ending a war and changing an alliance essential. Reducing aid, restricting weapons sales, and declining to join a future military operation have different consequences. A politician who places them beneath the broad promise of putting Americans first should explain what he means.
Vance has pursued negotiations with Iran. That belongs in any fair assessment of his record. It also places him inside the policy he is evaluating. If an Israeli minister offered this explanation in our studio, I would ask what he had advised and what responsibility he accepted for the outcome. The questions remain reasonable when the politician has an American accent.
Emanuel argues that pressure would help preserve the relationship. He told me he had confronted New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani over rhetoric threatening Israel’s existence, and that deserves credit.
I also challenged him on sanctioning banks that operate in the settlements, pointing out the consequences for Israel’s wider financial system. He defended using American power to achieve American policy goals.
That is a serious proposition, with consequences for ordinary Israelis. It requires scrutiny beyond whether the politician delivering it likes Netanyahu.
US military aid to Israel becomes a target in America's cost-of-living debate
The American Left has its own sales pitch. Cenk Uygur defended an advertisement placing Americans’ grocery bills alongside military aid to Israel. Piers Morgan, himself an opponent of the war, challenged the connection and cited the conflict’s effects on energy prices. Even he appeared to have reached his limit with Israel’s supposed responsibility for the weekly shopping bill.
Anyone promising cheaper groceries through a different relationship with Israel should explain the arithmetic with the same enthusiasm they bring to blaming Jerusalem.
The cost of a war and the cost of military assistance need to be examined separately. Treating Israel as a convenient explanation for American hardship invites resentment while leaving voters poorly informed.
The polling offers little comfort to Jerusalem. ABC found that 51% of voters considered US support for Israel too strong. Among those who thought it about right, Republicans won 72% to Democrats’ 26%.
There is a substantial argument to be made about those findings. They establish neither a detailed mandate for changing the alliance nor a single explanation for the Republican defeat.
Israel’s next government should begin by preparing for these pressures under either party. The prime minister should ask the foreign and defense ministries for a joint assessment of the consequences of reduced American assistance and tighter conditions on weapons sales. That assessment should identify what Israel could finance itself and which capabilities would be at risk.
Our diplomacy should then address the argument Americans are actually having. Explain what cooperation contributes to their security. Acknowledge its costs and the limits of our shared interests. Ask Vance and Emanuel to say precisely what they would change and what commitments they would maintain when defending Israel became politically expensive.
An American president’s first responsibility is to Americans. Israel’s leaders are responsible for ensuring that our security survives changes in American politics. They should start planning for the answers we may dislike while there is still time to act on them.