Trump’s Test – Commendation or Reprimand
This article was originally published by Makor Rishon in March 2026.
The current campaign in the Middle East is, from Donald Trump’s perspective, a test of American power and of his own stature as leader of the free world. Very soon we will know the answers to key questions, including whether the United States can impose its will on Iran, set the pace of events, and compel the region to respond to Washington rather than the other way around.
For that reason, Trump is operating on more than just the military plane. He is employing a method: threat, delay, an opening for talks, and then the reintroduction of pressure. The postponement of the ultimatum does not necessarily signal hesitation, especially as American and Israeli strikes continue alongside a clear message that the hammer—whether in the form of a Marine invasion and/or massive strikes on energy infrastructure—remains fully on the table. Trump is navigating between domestic criticism, European reluctance to provide military support, the need to demonstrate American resolve, and the desire to shape the war rather than be drawn into it. Even as Iran denies any negotiations, Trump seeks to project a clear picture: Washington sets the timing, controls the intensity, and dictates the terms of exit.
This is precisely where the logic of “America First” comes into play. It does not reflect disengagement from the Middle East, but rather the use of the region to restore the United States’ preeminent global standing. Trump understands that if America once again appears slow to react, overly passive, or weak, the message will resonate far beyond Iran. Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang would see it as further evidence of eroding American deterrence. For Trump, this is a credibility test. He aims to demonstrate that the United States can wield power, influence energy markets, shape diplomatic outcomes, and, above all, impose tangible costs on states and leaders who challenge it.
Israel plays a central role in Trump’s approach. From the American president’s perspective, Israel is both an operational ally and a strategic force multiplier. It has the capability to apply pressure on Iran, deliver results on the ground, and help translate military gains into political outcomes on American terms. Trump is seeking to reshape the regional balance of power through an American lens. In this context, Israel serves as a key component in a broader effort to reinforce U.S. deterrence and convince the world that Washington remains firmly in control.
Trump’s strategy is also directed toward Riyadh and Doha. Saudi Arabia and Qatar are not acting out of affinity for Israel, but out of deep concern for their own stability. Attacks on Gulf energy infrastructure and threats to the broader energy domain have underscored how prolonged escalation directly endangers their core interests. For Qatar, whose status relies on gas exports, commercial credibility, and regional stability, this presents an immediate threat. For Saudi Arabia, which seeks to project a future of investment, tourism, growth, and regional leadership, every escalation pulls the region back into the familiar language of missiles, risk, and investor flight.
Both Saudi Arabia and Qatar must manage two conflicting pressures simultaneously: on one hand, Washington expects alignment against Iran; on the other, domestic and regional sensitivities make overt proximity to Israel or a confrontational U.S. posture politically risky. Trump does not necessarily require full public backing from them. It is sufficient that they refrain from obstructing his efforts, assist when needed through mediation channels, and recognize that instability in Saudi Arabia or Qatar would directly harm clear American interests.
Alongside the regional dimension, Trump is also operating under domestic political constraints. The Republican base supports a firm line against Iran, yet that support is not unconditional. As the conflict drags on, energy prices rise and concerns grow over deeper U.S. entanglement. Pressure mounts on Trump to deliver a decisive outcome. He must convince the American public that the United States is not once again sinking into a Middle Eastern quagmire, but rather leveraging the crisis to restore control, deterrence, and strategic advantage. If he succeeds, he will be able to claim that he contained Iran, stabilized allies, and strengthened America. If he fails, his approval ratings may decline further, potentially affecting the prospects of the next Republican presidential candidate.
Trump’s test is demanding, consequential, and far-reaching. A partial victory will satisfy no one and would brand the entire campaign as a failure, paving the way for another round of conflict. Yet if Trump succeeds in translating military, economic, and diplomatic moves into a new regional order, he may well enter the history books as a commanding strategist.
