In the lead-up to former President Donald Trump’s high-stakes trip to the Middle East, U.S. officials made the calculated decision to keep Israel at a diplomatic distance—at least temporarily. The move raised eyebrows among analysts and allies, but sources suggest it was part of a broader strategy to strengthen ties with Arab nations and avoid early controversy.
At the center of the decision was Trump’s goal to revive peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. White House advisors believed that starting the trip with overt closeness to Israel could alienate Arab partners and derail early momentum for regional diplomacy. Instead, the administration focused on building trust with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan, key players in the region’s balance of power.
“There was no intention to insult Israel,” one senior administration official said. “This was about sequencing and optics—earning buy-in from the Arab world first.”
Some Israeli officials privately expressed frustration at being excluded from initial planning conversations, while others remained hopeful that the U.S. approach would ultimately lead to stronger regional agreements, including normalization efforts similar to the Abraham Accords.
Critics of the strategy accused the Trump administration of sidelining a key ally for the sake of political theater. However, supporters argued it was a realistic move aimed at addressing long-standing mistrust between Arab nations and the U.S. over its perceived bias toward Israel.
Ultimately, Trump did meet with Israeli leaders during his visit and reaffirmed America’s commitment to Israel’s security. Yet the diplomatic choreography reflected a shifting U.S. approach—one focused less on traditional alliances and more on reshaping the geopolitical narrative in a volatile region.
Whether this sideline tactic advanced long-term peace efforts remains a subject of ongoing debate among diplomats and historians.
