Will US Continue Sharing the Burden of Netanyahu’s Policies?

International partnerships are often tested when the decisions of one country begin to create political difficulties for the other. The relationship between the United States and Israel is facing such a moment. For decades, Washington has provided Israel with military assistance, diplomatic support and political backing. However, the war in Gaza has made this support increasingly difficult to defend, both internationally and within American politics. The 2026 US midterm elections have added another dimension to this debate, raising an important question: how long can Washington continue bearing the political and diplomatic costs of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s policies?

One of the most notable developments in the midterm elections was the victory of Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan, making him the first Muslim elected to the US Senate. His campaign included strong criticism of American military support for Israel and concern over the humanitarian situation in Gaza. His victory is significant not simply because of his religious identity, but because it brings another voice into the Senate that is openly questioning Washington’s approach towards Israel. His personal sympathies with Muslims and Palestinians affected by the war may also shape how he raises the issue in American politics.

However, it would be an overstatement to interpret his victory as a direct public mandate to change US policy towards Israel. American voters were also concerned about inflation, employment, immigration and the wider direction of the country. Nevertheless, his presence in the Senate, alongside other lawmakers critical of Israeli military actions, may increase pressure on the administration to explain and review its support for Netanyahu’s government. It could also give greater political space to discussions about humanitarian assistance, civilian protection and the conditions attached to military aid.

The election results have also strengthened the Democratic position in Congress, creating a more challenging environment for President Donald Trump. A Congress more willing to question military assistance could increase scrutiny of arms transfers, funding and the administration’s diplomatic position. Although the president retains considerable authority over foreign policy, congressional pressure can influence the political space in which decisions are made.

Interestingly, Trump himself announced on 3 November that the United States and Israel had agreed to end around $4 billion in annual US assistance to Israel by the end of 2026, while indicating that American support would remain available if required. This announcement should not be confused with an already completed policy change. The existing US-Israel agreement provides $3.8 billion annually and is scheduled to run until September 2028. The mechanism for ending this arrangement early remains unclear. Nevertheless, the announcement suggests that military assistance to Israel has become a more sensitive issue in American domestic politics.

The debate is not limited to Democrats. Some Republicans who support Trump’s America First approach have also questioned the scale of overseas spending and the cost of remaining involved in foreign conflicts. Their concerns are not necessarily rooted in sympathy for Palestinians. Rather, they reflect a wider demand to prioritise domestic problems and avoid commitments that could draw the United States into prolonged regional tensions. This creates an additional political challenge for Netanyahu, as support for Israel can no longer be treated as an unquestioned position across the American political spectrum.

Despite these developments, a sudden American withdrawal from its military and strategic commitments to Israel remains highly unlikely. The relationship is much deeper than the political preferences of an individual president or the position of a few lawmakers. It is built on decades of intelligence cooperation, defence technology, missile defence systems and shared regional security interests, particularly regarding Iran. Israel also remains an important partner in Washington’s wider Middle East calculations. These interests are unlikely to disappear because of one election or a change in congressional representation.

Yet, the United States must also consider the wider regional consequences of its policies. Continued backing for every Israeli military decision carries a diplomatic cost. It affects Washington’s credibility on international law and civilian protection, while complicating its relations with countries such as Saudi Arabia, Türkiye, Egypt and Jordan. It also makes it more difficult for the United States to present itself as a credible mediator in the region. The challenge for Washington is therefore not simply how to maintain its relationship with Israel, but how to do so without weakening its broader regional position.

This situation can be understood through Robert Putnam’s Two-Level Game Theory. The theory explains that governments must manage two realities at the same time: their international commitments and the political expectations of their domestic audiences. Trump must maintain a strategic partnership with Israel while responding to voters, Congress and divisions within his own political coalition. Netanyahu, meanwhile, must recognise that policies which repeatedly create difficulties for Washington may eventually affect the level and nature of American support.

The future of the US approach towards Israel will therefore depend on how these competing interests are managed. Greater congressional scrutiny, pressure for humanitarian access to Gaza and closer examination of military assistance are possible outcomes. Washington may also push for restraint and renewed diplomatic efforts towards a political settlement. However, these developments should not be mistaken for an immediate shift towards abandoning Israel or completely changing the foundations of the relationship.

Ultimately, Abdul El-Sayed’s victory represents an important political development, but its impact should be understood in proportion. It may strengthen the voice of Muslim, progressive and pro-Palestinian concerns within American institutions and make unconditional support for Netanyahu more difficult to defend. Yet, the wider strategic relationship remains firmly established. The more likely outcome is not a sudden American break with Israel, but a gradual effort to place greater limits, conditions and political scrutiny on its support. Washington may continue standing with Israel, but it will face growing pressure to distinguish between its long-term commitment to Israel’s security and its willingness to support every decision made by Netanyahu’s government.