Donald Trump’s full endorsement of Benjamin Netanyahu came as a surprise in both its timing and tone, after relations between the two men had appeared increasingly strained by the consequences of the war with Iran. Amit Segal had, however, raised the possibility of an “October surprise” in Israel Hayom on September 3, suggesting that Netanyahu might receive a last-minute boost—a possibility I discussed in my earlier column, “Trump’s Burdensome Ally.” At the time, the question was whether the American president might see a different Israeli government as an opportunity to lighten the burden of his alliance with Netanyahu; his endorsement now raises a more complicated question: how has Netanyahu regained his value to Trump without overcoming the very problems that made him a liability?

 

The significance of that question lies in the prospect that a change of government in Israel could ease Washington’s friction with its European and Arab partners and improve its ability to manage regional relations, even without a fundamental shift in Israeli policy. Netanyahu carries political and personal baggage that extends beyond disagreements over any single issue, while the war with Iran has added American objections to the conflict’s objectives and costs. Those objections have reached the heart of the White House, with JD Vance criticizing elements within the Israeli government whom he accused of trying to influence American public opinion to prolong the war, exposing a distinction between maintaining the alliance with Israel and seeing value in Netanyahu’s continued leadership.

 

Yet the answer depends not only on the costs of the relationship but also on how the alternatives are presented to the president, which makes the contest for influence within the White House central to understanding Trump’s renewed embrace of Netanyahu. In Trump’s highly personal approach to politics, trust in those around him and their access to him carry considerable weight, allowing advisers who can portray the alliance as useful to his own objectives to tip the balance even while objections remain unresolved. What may have changed, then, is Trump’s assessment of his need for Netanyahu, whose political survival has been recast as an opportunity for the American president rather than simply a favor to the Israeli prime minister.

 

The differing positions within Trump’s circle help explain this possibility. Segal previously placed Marco Rubio and Mike Huckabee among those more sympathetic to Netanyahu, while identifying reservations on the part of Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff; reports following the endorsement also described opposition from advisers and Trump’s consultation with John McLaughlin, who has worked with both his election campaigns and Likud. These accounts do not establish who ultimately determined the outcome, but they suggest that the decision emerged from a contest over what would best serve Trump, and that support for Israel does not necessarily translate into agreement over Netanyahu’s continued leadership or the price worth paying to preserve it.

 

Seen in this light, the endorsement suggests that the argument linking Netanyahu’s survival to Trump’s electoral and regional interests has gained the upper hand. The influence of Netanyahu’s supporters cannot be separated from their ability to address the president’s own concerns, foremost among them the cohesion of his political base ahead of the midterm elections. White evangelical Protestants accounted for approximately 30 percent of Republican voters, according to Pew’s 2024 data, and Netanyahu has close ties to the Christian Zionist current within that constituency, making support for him a possible means of reassuring an influential, if far from uniform, bloc. Having already paid a political price for the war, Trump may be reluctant to compound it by dampening enthusiasm among voters on whom he has long relied.

 

That argument becomes more compelling when it intersects with Iran, because a president who has borne the costs of confrontation needs an outcome he can present as an achievement. Here, Netanyahu acquires a value beyond his appeal to evangelical voters, as Trump’s endorsement itself makes clear: he tied his support to confronting Iran, spoke of “finishing the job” soon, and suggested that a different Israeli leader would leave America to do so alone. The message effectively recasts the ally accused of drawing Washington into a costly confrontation as the partner the president needs to bring it to a successful conclusion.

 

This reading gives added significance to reports of American military preparations for renewed operations against Iran, while preserving the distinction between preparing options and deciding on war, as well as the possibility that military threats are intended to strengthen Washington’s negotiating position. If Trump is still seeking an outcome the previous confrontation failed to deliver, Netanyahu’s eagerness to escalate may become a reason to retain him, having previously been a source of frustration. Here lies the more dangerous paradox: the costs of war may encourage both men to expand it in search of a way out, even though another round could deepen their economic and political predicament and heighten the risks facing the region and Washington’s partners within it.

 

At this point, the competition within the administration extends beyond preferences over Netanyahu to a more fundamental disagreement about how American interests should be protected, bringing Vance back to the center of the picture. He is closer to a current within MAGA that is wary of foreign wars and questions the assumption that American and Israeli interests invariably coincide, without representing the movement as a whole or opposing the alliance with Israel. The more heavily Trump invests in Netanyahu, the harder it becomes to reconcile those reservations with the obligation to defend the president’s choices, particularly if an electoral endorsement develops into a partnership in another military campaign. Such a development could widen the political distance between president and vice president, although the endorsement alone does not establish that Vance’s influence has diminished or that a rupture has emerged.

 

This interplay also explains the force of the message directed at Israeli voters, for Trump is offering Netanyahu more than a declaration of friendship: he is presenting him as the partner America needs. That allows Netanyahu to turn his relationship with the White House into an argument against an opposition united by the objective of removing him, while suggesting to voters that changing their prime minister could jeopardize a strategic advantage for their country. Such intervention cannot guarantee victory, but it could influence the margins that decide a close election, giving Netanyahu a chance to defend his continued leadership by invoking Washington’s need for him, after his opponents had cited the burden he places on Israel’s relationship with the United States.

 

The comparison with Bill Clinton is therefore useful in identifying the character of this intervention. Clinton sought to help Shimon Peres defeat Netanyahu in 1996, after the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, out of concern for a peace process he feared would be endangered by a Likud victory. Yet he maintained some distance between his political preference and his official position, affirming that the alliance would endure regardless of the winner. Trump, by contrast, ties the suitability of Israel’s leadership to Netanyahu personally and portrays the election of someone else as a problem for America, marking a difference both in the explicitness of the endorsement and the pressure it exerts, and in the shift from supporting a candidate to protect a political process to making that process—and relations between two countries—dependent on one man’s survival.

 

In this sense, Netanyahu may never have ceased to be Trump’s burdensome ally; he has regained his standing because the argument that abandoning him would cost more than retaining him has prevailed. The contest for influence within the White House is the channel through which electoral calculations and the wager on Iran combine to shape the president’s decision, which means the test of this renewed embrace will extend beyond the outcome of Israel’s election. It will also turn on whether Trump uses his support to impose his own terms on Netanyahu, or finds that he has once again tied his success to the choices of an ally whose next gamble could reproduce the very burdens he had hoped to escape.