It is now evident that the foreign policy of the second Trump administration largely contradicts the President’s original campaign platform, effectively overturning the “MAGA” agenda. Whether this also poses a risk to American internal checks&balances is a matter for US voters; for Europeans, the primary concern is that Washington has initiated a broad conflict that is already drawing in regional and global actors.
A preliminary assessment suggests that Donald Trump is adopting what might be called the “Netanyahu method,” applied with the unique leverage of a global superpower.
The White House frames the United States as a nation under siege: from migration pressures at the borders to Sino-Russian encroachment in the Arctic (including of course Greenland) and Panama, to former allies accused of exploiting American protection and ripping off the US economically.
In this climate of permanent emergency, Washington appears to have chosen a path of constant threats—primarily through the broad application of tariffs—and preemptive military actions launched without a defined strategy for the “day after.” The immediate goal is to weaken adversaries through financial and military superiority, deferring the management of new political balances to a later date. This mirrors the Netanyahu doctrine: objectives begin as vague defensive measures, escalate into maximalist goals (the total eradication of Hamas or Iran’s Ayatollahs), and finally settle into an incomplete but somehow acceptable status quo. Any front can be re-opened at a later date and is never truly stabilized.
Under this approach, international law and stable multilateral alliances are bypassed as being too restrictive. This shift also impacts the domestic landscape, as a state of near-constant emergency justifies a strain on constitutional balances in favor of the Executive branch.
The similarities between Trump and Netanyahu are now so pronounced that it is difficult to distinguish between the two leaders in describing the political dynamic at play. We are seeing a messianic-transactional vision masquerading as Realpolitik. Unlike traditional political realism, which seeks the conditions for long-term stability, this approach constantly shifts the goalposts. Military force is presented as the prerequisite for a future “deal,” yet the path from short term coercion to the final destination (“Great America” or “Greater Israel”) lacks measurable milestones or clear priorities.
Read also: Tel Aviv, Tehran, Washington, and the failure of multilateralism
The United States appears increasingly “Israelized”, to the extent that its general attitude toward foreign affairs resembles the vision of Netanyahu’s conservative coalition. Indeed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio (before qualifying his statements) recently signaled a degree of American deference to Jerusalem, suggesting the US strikes on Iran were partly a preemptive move to stay ahead of an imminent, independent Israeli attack. This creates a strange logical sequence where US military action is used to manage an ally’s decisions as much as to deter an enemy.
This dynamic also creates a distorted version of the Abraham Accords framework. Originally envisioned (since the 2020 announcement) as a bridge between the Euro-Atlantic and Indo-Pacific regions through a Jerusalem-Riyadh axis, the project now faces the strain of regional blowback. With Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states caught in the crossfire of decisions made in Washington and (especially) Jerusalem, the foundation for a stable, interdependent Middle East appears increasingly fragile.
For Europe, this Trump-Netanyahu convergence leaves very little room for maneuver. While the United Kingdom has shown unexpected coolness and Spain openly expressed its reservations on the military course of action, the most telling reaction came from German Chancellor Friedrich Merz.
During an already planned visit to Washington, Merz offered a sober admission: Germany supports the American action despite having no real influence on its evolution and while acknowledging it undermines international law. It was a statement of resignation, confirming that Europe currently possesses neither the practical means nor the political cohesion to shape the unfolding conflict. As Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney succinctly put it, there is little left to do but support the attack, albeit “with regret.”
Here for the Italian version of this article