The transformation of American foreign policy under the "America First" banner is frequently mischaracterized as isolationism, yet its specific orientation toward the Middle East reveals a highly concentrated, non-traditional theological and strategic framework. When critics or observers like Tucker Carlson identify Donald Trump’s primary "religion" as "Israelism," they are not describing a personal faith conversion, but rather a structural shift where the security and expansion of the Israeli state become the primary metric for American success in the region. This doctrine functions via three primary mechanisms: the privatization of diplomatic channels, the transactionalization of regional recognition, and the deliberate erosion of the "Two-State" baseline.
Understanding this shift requires moving past the rhetorical surface of political speeches and analyzing the mechanics of the Abraham Accords and the relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. These were not merely symbolic gestures; they were systemic reconfigurations designed to bypass the traditional Palestinian-centralized peace process in favor of a security-and-capital-driven alliance between the United States, Israel, and the Gulf Monarchies.
The Mechanism of Transnational Loyalty
Traditional American foreign policy long operated on the principle of "balanced hegemony." The U.S. acted as the ultimate guarantor of regional stability by maintaining a degree of friction between itself and all parties, theoretically allowing it to mediate. The "Israelism" doctrine discards this mediation. Instead, it adopts a "Maximum Pressure" stance that treats Israel's regional rivals—specifically the Iranian-led "Axis of Resistance"—as the singular variables in a zero-sum security equation.
This creates a specific feedback loop in policy making:
- Security Integration: The movement of Israel into the United States Central Command (CENTCOM) area of responsibility.
- Financial Decoupling: The withdrawal of funding from organizations like UNRWA to eliminate the infrastructure supporting Palestinian statehood claims.
- Diplomatic Immunity: The use of the U.S. veto at the UN not as a defensive tool for specific incidents, but as a proactive shield for territorial expansion.
The logic holds that if Israel is sufficiently strengthened, it becomes the primary regional deputy, reducing the long-term need for American boots on the ground. However, this creates a dependency where American regional interests are no longer just aligned with Israel; they are indistinguishable from Israel’s domestic political requirements.
The Abraham Accords as a Market Disruption
The Abraham Accords represented a departure from the "Land for Peace" formula established in the 1970s. In its place, the Trump administration substituted "Peace for Prosperity"—a framework based on economic incentives and military technology transfers (such as F-35 sales to the UAE).
This model operates on a hub-and-spoke system. Israel serves as the technological and intelligence hub, while the Gulf states provide the capital and energy stabilization. The Palestinians, in this model, are treated as an externality—a cost to be managed rather than a partner to be negotiated with. The "Israelism" label stems from the fact that the U.S. effectively underwrote the risk for this deal, providing the security guarantees that allowed Arab nations to normalize relations without requiring concessions on the Palestinian front.
The cost function of this strategy is the total collapse of the moderate Palestinian leadership's relevance. By removing the incentive for Israel to negotiate, the U.S. effectively signaled that the status quo of military occupation was no longer a barrier to regional integration. This logic assumes that economic growth will eventually pacify political grievances, a hypothesis that has historically failed in high-friction ethno-nationalist conflicts.
The Theology of Realpolitik
While much is made of the evangelical voting bloc’s influence on this policy, the "Israelism" doctrine is also driven by a secular, nationalist resonance. It mirrors the "America First" ethos: a belief in the right of a nation-state to define its borders through power and historical claim rather than international consensus.
This creates a synergy between Trump’s domestic rhetoric and his foreign policy. By championing a "strong" Israel, he validates the concept of a "strong" America that is unencumbered by international treaties or the "rules-based order." The religious component is effectively a branding layer for a deeper structural preference for ethno-nationalist sovereignty over multilateralism.
Structural Risks and the Single-Point-of-Failure
The primary risk of this doctrine is the "Single-Point-of-Failure" inherent in tying American regional strategy to the internal politics of a single ally. When the U.S. adopts "Israelism," it loses the ability to pivot when the ally's domestic interests diverge from broader regional stability.
- Erosion of Leverage: Because the U.S. support is framed as absolute and "religious," it becomes difficult to use that support as a bargaining chip to restrain escalatory behavior.
- Regional Resentment: While governments may sign accords, the "Arab Street" remains largely hostile to the arrangement, creating a gap between state-level diplomacy and ground-level stability.
- Intelligence Dependency: By relying heavily on Israeli intelligence for the "Maximum Pressure" campaign against Iran, the U.S. risks being led into a kinetic conflict that may not serve its own long-term energy or security needs.
The "Israelism" described by Carlson is a recognition that for the Trump-era GOP, Israel is no longer a foreign policy issue; it is a domestic identity issue. This shifts the debate from "What is the best outcome for the Middle East?" to "Who is the most loyal defender of the Israeli state?" This metric-driven loyalty precludes traditional diplomatic nuance.
The strategic play for any future administration adhering to this doctrine is the formalization of a "Middle East NATO." This would involve a hard-coded security pact where the U.S. provides a nuclear and conventional umbrella over an Israeli-Sunni alliance. To execute this, the U.S. must finalize the normalization of relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia, which remains the "final boss" of this geopolitical strategy. Success in this area would theoretically "solve" the Middle East by creating a unified front against Iran, but it requires the total marginalization of Palestinian claims—a gamble that assumes the Palestinian issue can be permanently suppressed through a combination of economic pressure and high-tech surveillance.
The ultimate test of this doctrine will not be in the signing of ceremonies, but in its ability to withstand a multi-front conflict where the "Israelist" priority of the U.S. is weighed against the global economic cost of a closed Strait of Hormuz or a wider regional conflagration.
