Hillary Clinton’s recent remarks to David Remnick—that Prime Minister Netanyahu repeatedly pressed the United States to take military action against Iran during her tenure—echo comments Donald Trump himself has made about Israeli pressure. Now that events have taken a disastrous turn, the question is not simply what Israel has done, but what the United States should do next. What is our position toward an ally when the path we were urged toward has gone badly wrong?
George Washington offered the clearest early guidance: American foreign policy must be grounded in the national interest, not in sentiment, loyalty, or the preferences of other states—though those factors may, at times, align with our interests. The Constitution reinforces this principle by distributing war‑making authority among the executive, Congress, and the military. Decisions of this magnitude require a deliberate process, interrupted only by genuine urgency—and even then, the urgency itself must be scrutinized, not accepted at face value.
Over the past century, the United States helped build a network of international institutions—NATO, the United Nations, the World Court—designed to provide consultation, legitimacy, and restraint. If we contemplate military action, we owe the public and the world a clear explanation of why it is necessary and how it serves the national interest. That is the essence of constitutional government and responsible statecraft.
If, instead, decisions are shaped primarily by persuasion from an ally—without process, without congressional debate, without institutional consultation—then the failure is not Israel’s. The failure is ours. Allies will always advocate for their own perceived interests; it is the responsibility of the United States to ensure that its own procedures are followed. The appropriate response is not backlash against Israel, but inquiry into why our processes were bypassed, and how to ensure they are honored next time.
In the next geopolitical crisis, our interests and Israel’s may well align. But alignment must be the product of deliberation, not momentum. The task now is to reaffirm the constitutional and institutional safeguards that exist precisely to prevent foreign policy from being made by impulse, sentiment, or external pressure. Only then can we act with clarity—and with the confidence that our decisions reflect the national interest rather than the urgencies of the moment.