Every few months, a new capital discovers with amazement that its relationship with Donald Trump, which it thought was special, is not. Today, many commentators are wondering about the growing tensions between the American president and Benjamin Netanyahu.
For many, the prospect seems surprising after the unprecedented military cooperation between the United States and Israel during the war against Iran in February 2026, multiple meetings between the two leaders and a relationship often presented as exceptional.
The inconstancy of Donald Trump
Yet none of this is new. We are talking about the same president who threatened a NATO ally over Greenland, discussed the annexation of Canada as the “51st state”, called into question security commitments considered for decades as pillars of the Western order and treated historic partners as mere commercial interlocutors.
Likewise today, part of the Iranian opposition is expressing its anger after believing they saw in Trump’s policies the prelude to a more profound transformation of the regime.
The real mystery is why so many leaders, allies and observers continue to believe that with them this time it will be different. One of the constants of the Trump presidency is the ability of his partners to convince themselves that they will benefit from special treatment.
“The assurances received do not constitute a lasting guarantee”
This belief is not absurd. The Europeans invoke seventy-five years of transatlantic alliance. Canadians recall a unique geographic, cultural and economic proximity.
Israel can invoke the Abraham Accords, the 2026 war against Iran and a relationship often presented as privileged. Gulf monarchies highlight decades of security cooperation with Washington.
As for part of the Iranian opposition, it saw in the policy of maximum pressure and in certain messages addressed directly to the Iranian people the sign of a more ambitious American commitment against the regime.
This is precisely where the error lies. Europeans, Canadians, Syrian Kurds, Gulf monarchies, Israelis and Iranian opponents have all ended up discovering the same reality: neither proximity to Washington, nor the promises, nor the assurances received constitute a lasting guarantee.
Trump does not betray his doctrine, he applies it
The problem is therefore not the inconstancy of the American president. It is the persistence of the idea according to which certain partners would still benefit from a privileged status capable of removing them from the logic which governs its action.
To understand these repeated misunderstandings, we must question a widely shared hypothesis: that according to which Trump views international relations like his predecessors.
Since 1945, Washington’s partners have become accustomed to lasting alliances, to consultation between allies and to the idea that certain common values structure international relations.
Trump reasons differently. For him, an alliance is a relationship whose usefulness must be regularly reassessed. Seniority counts less than current interest and no partner benefits from a special status.
The nature of a regime or the status of an interlocutor often counts less than the agreement he believes he can obtain. Few actors are excluded in principle from the negotiation if they think they will benefit from it. In the eyes of many allies, Trump is changing course. To his people, he only follows the same compass.
No lasting privileged relationship either with Benyamin Netanyahu
The G7 discussions provide an illustration of this. European leaders are holding more meetings in the hope of convincing the American president on Ukraine, customs tariffs or the security of the continent. They seek to preserve Western solidarity inherited from the post-war period. Trump, above all, seems to be wondering what the United States has to gain, and what he himself can gain from it politically.
The relationship with Benyamin Netanyahu also illustrates this. After years of political proximity and two wars with Iran, many assumed that this relationship enjoyed a special status.
However, the Israeli prime minister found himself confronted with several faits accomplis: the opening of negotiations with Tehran, a memorandum of understanding largely negotiated without him and repeated public criticism from the American president. Here again, the privileged relationship did not prevent the return of the balance of power.
When will we draw the consequences?
The surprise therefore perhaps says less about Trump than about those who persist in analyzing him through the categories of a world that is no longer entirely his own. Ultimately, the question is no longer what Donald Trump will do tomorrow. For almost ten years, he has repeated the same lesson: no relationship is acquired and no privilege is permanent. The real question therefore lies elsewhere.
How many additional disappointments will be necessary before the Europeans draw all the conclusions from this reality? How many summits and broken promises before they really invest in their defense and strategic autonomy? How many more discussions will it take before they accept that their interests do not always coincide with those of Washington?
The same question applies to other partners of the United States, whether Israel, the Gulf monarchies or others.
If an ally can change priorities overnight, then the real assurance lies not in proximity to Washington but in its own capacity for action. The real mystery of the Trump presidency may not be its unpredictability. It is our persistence in being surprised.
About opinions
This text is signed by a guest author. He expresses his opinion and not that of the editorial staff. Our Live section aims to allow the expression of pluralism on religious, social and current affairs subjects, and to encourage dialogue, according to the criteria set by our editorial charter.
Share your opinion in comments or by writing to us at: readers.lacroix@groupebayard.com
