Throughout modern history, alliances between powerful political leaders have often played a decisive role in shaping the direction of international politics and the trajectory of global conflict. The relationships formed between heads of state are rarely limited to diplomacy alone; they often influence military strategies, economic policies, and the broader balance of power within and across regions. At times, such partnerships have functioned as stabilizing forces, encouraging cooperation, negotiation, and collective security. In other instances, however, they have intensified existing tensions, emboldened aggressive policies, and accelerated the movement toward large-scale war.

History provides many examples demonstrating how personal and ideological alignments between leaders can significantly affect world affairs. When leaders share strategic objectives, political visions, or mutual geopolitical interests, their collaboration can reshape alliances, alter diplomatic norms, and influence how conflicts unfold. These partnerships often create a sense of momentum, either toward peace or toward confrontation, depending on the priorities and policies pursued by the leaders involved.

In contemporary geopolitical debate, some critics have drawn controversial comparisons between the political alignment of Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu and the partnership forged between Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini during the years leading up to and throughout World War II. The latter alliance, often referred to historically as the Rome–Berlin Axis, was a defining feature of the geopolitical landscape of the late 1930s and early 1940s. It represented a convergence of authoritarian leadership, expansionist ambitions, and coordinated political and military strategies that ultimately contributed to one of the most destructive conflicts in human history.

Those who invoke such comparisons typically do so to highlight concerns about how close political alignment between powerful leaders can influence regional conflicts and reshape international diplomacy. In the modern case, the relationship between Trump and Netanyahu has drawn considerable attention because of the strong political support expressed by the United States for Israeli government policies. Decisions such as the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and other diplomatic moves signaled a deep political alignment between the two leaders, prompting both praise from supporters and criticism from detractors.

It is important to note that historical analogies of this kind are inherently contentious. The political systems, historical contexts, and global conditions surrounding the Trump–Netanyahu relationship differ profoundly from those that existed during the era of Hitler and Mussolini. The international system today includes complex institutions, diplomatic frameworks, and global interdependence that did not exist in the same form during the interwar period. For this reason, many historians and political analysts caution against drawing overly simplistic parallels between contemporary politics and the events that led to World War II.

Nevertheless, the comparison reflects deeper anxieties present in today’s geopolitical environment. Critics who raise these parallels are often expressing concern about how leadership alliances can amplify regional tensions and potentially escalate conflicts beyond their immediate geographic boundaries. In the Middle East, a region long marked by political instability, competing national interests, and involvement by major world powers, decisions made by influential leaders can have consequences that extend far beyond national borders.

The underlying fear in such debates is that escalating regional confrontations, if combined with rigid alliances and uncompromising political positions, might gradually draw in additional actors and expand into broader international crises. The memory of the 1930s serves as a powerful historical warning: what began as regional disputes in Europe eventually evolved into a global war involving nations across multiple continents.

While the circumstances of the twenty-first century differ dramatically from those of the early twentieth century, the enduring lesson of history is that alliances between influential leaders carry immense geopolitical weight.

They can encourage diplomacy and stability, but they can also intensify divisions and deepen conflicts. For many observers, this dual possibility underscores the importance of careful diplomacy, restraint, and international cooperation in a world where the consequences of geopolitical miscalculation could once again prove devastating on a global scale.

Historical Precedent: The Hitler–Mussolini Axis

In the late 1930s, Europe witnessed the consolidation of an ideological and strategic alliance between Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini. This partnership, often referred to as the Rome–Berlin Axis, combined expansionist ambitions, authoritarian governance, and a willingness to use military force to reshape regional order.

By 1936, Mussolini publicly described the growing relationship between the two countries as an “axis” around which European politics would revolve.

This concept soon became formalized through a series of agreements that deepened political and military coordination. One of the most significant milestones was the signing of the Pact of Steel in 1939, a military and political alliance that committed both nations to support each other in the event of war. The pact effectively bound the two regimes together in a shared strategic future.

The collaboration between Hitler and Mussolini was not merely symbolic. It involved coordinated political strategies, military cooperation, and mutual diplomatic support across multiple theaters of conflict. Both regimes actively assisted each other in foreign interventions, most notably during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939). In that conflict, Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy provided troops, aircraft, weapons, and logistical assistance to the Nationalist forces led by Francisco Franco. The war served as both a testing ground for new military tactics and a demonstration of the growing cooperation between the Axis powers.

As the 1930s progressed, the alliance emboldened increasingly aggressive policies. Nazi Germany pursued territorial expansion through a series of bold moves, including the annexation of Austria during the Anschluss in 1938 and the dismantling of Czechoslovakia following the Munich Agreement. Italy, meanwhile, expanded its influence across the Mediterranean and the Balkans, including the invasion of Albania in 1939.

The partnership between Hitler and Mussolini became even more consequential with the outbreak of World War II in 1939. Although Italy initially hesitated to enter the conflict, Mussolini eventually joined Germany in 1940, hoping to capitalize on what appeared to be rapid German military victories across Europe. The alliance then extended its military campaigns into numerous regions, including North Africa, the Balkans, and the Mediterranean.

In North Africa, Axis forces attempted to challenge British influence and control vital trade routes and strategic territory. The German Afrika Korps, led by Erwin Rommel, worked alongside Italian forces in a series of campaigns that turned the region into a major battleground. Meanwhile, coordinated Axis operations in southeastern Europe reshaped the political landscape of the Balkans and brought additional countries into the conflict.

Despite early successes, the Axis partnership eventually faced mounting setbacks as Allied powers mobilized vast military and industrial resources. By the mid-1940s, the tide of the war had turned decisively against Germany and Italy. Mussolini’s regime collapsed in 1943, and Italy eventually switched sides, while Nazi Germany continued fighting until its defeat in 1945.

The consequences of the Hitler–Mussolini alliance were catastrophic. The war they helped unleash devastated much of Europe, Asia, and North Africa, resulting in widespread destruction, the deaths of tens of millions of people, and profound political transformations across the globe. The conflict also exposed the dangers of unchecked authoritarian power, militaristic expansion, and ideological extremism.

For historians and political analysts, the partnership between Hitler and Mussolini serves as a powerful example of how alliances between ambitious and ideologically aligned leaders can dramatically amplify the scale and consequences of regional conflicts. When such alliances combine military cooperation, political coordination, and shared strategic goals, they can accelerate the path toward war and reshape the international order in ways that reverberate for generations.

The Modern Context: Trump and Netanyahu

In the twenty-first century, the political relationship between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu has become a focal point of international discussion and debate. Their alignment is widely seen as one of the closest political relationships between a U.S. president and an Israeli prime minister in recent decades. While the United States and Israel have maintained a strategic partnership for many years, the period between 2017 and 2021 marked a phase in which American foreign policy appeared particularly aligned with the priorities and perspectives of Netanyahu’s government.

Under Trump’s presidency, the United States has adopted several policies that are widely interpreted as strongly supportive of Israel. These moves are not only diplomatic gestures but also significant shifts in long-standing American approaches to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Middle Eastern diplomacy. Supporters view these actions as pragmatic adjustments that acknowledge political realities on the ground, while critics argue that they disrupt established diplomatic frameworks and intensify regional tensions.

One of the most consequential decisions made by the Trump administration was the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. For decades, the status of Jerusalem had been among the most sensitive issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Both Israelis and Palestinians claim the city as their capital, and the international community had generally supported the idea that its final status should be determined through negotiations.

In 2017, the United States formally recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a decision that represented a significant departure from the policies of previous administrations. The move was followed in 2018 by the relocation of the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. This decision carried powerful symbolic and political significance, as it signaled a clear endorsement of Israel’s claim to the city as its seat of government.

Another important aspect of the Trump administration’s approach is its consistent diplomatic backing of Israel’s security policies. The United States has repeatedly defended Israel in international forums, including debates within the United Nations, where Israeli military actions and settlement policies are frequently the subject of criticism from other countries. The administration emphasizes Israel’s right to defend itself against security threats and maintains close military and intelligence cooperation with the Israeli government.

In addition to these policies, the first Trump administration pursued a broader regional initiative that culminated in the signing of the Abraham Accords in 2020. These agreements led to the normalization of diplomatic relations between Israel and several Arab states, including the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. The accords represented a significant shift in Middle Eastern diplomacy, as several Arab governments chose to establish formal ties with Israel without first securing a resolution to the Palestinian issue.

Supporters of the Trump administration’s policies argue that these initiatives have strengthened Israel’s strategic position and opened new opportunities for cooperation across the region. They point to expanding economic partnerships, technological exchanges, and security coordination between Israel and the Arab states that joined the normalization agreements. From this perspective, the policies pursued during this period helped reshape regional diplomacy and reduced some of the longstanding political barriers separating Israel from its neighbors.

Critics, however, offer a different interpretation of these developments. Many argue that the policies have deepened divisions within the Middle East by marginalizing the Palestinian leadership and weakening prospects for a negotiated settlement to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. Critics contend that bypassing the Palestinian issue in regional diplomacy risks entrenching grievances and making a comprehensive peace agreement more difficult to achieve.

It is within this critical perspective that some commentators invoke historical analogies to earlier geopolitical alliances. These comparisons are not necessarily meant to equate contemporary leaders with historical figures but rather to highlight concerns about how close political alignments between powerful leaders can influence regional conflicts and shape global perceptions of international power dynamics.

Perceived Parallels and Key Differences

The comparison between the relationship of Trump and Netanyahu and the partnership between Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini is largely rhetorical and symbolic rather than literal. Analysts and commentators who draw such comparisons often do so to provoke debate about the broader implications of close political alliances between powerful leaders. Their arguments typically focus on certain perceived similarities in the dynamics of leadership alignment, while also acknowledging that the historical contexts differ profoundly.

1.  Strong Personal Political Alignment

One of the most frequently cited parallels is the visible and public political support that leaders in both partnerships expressed for one another. In the modern context, Trump frequently praised Netanyahu’s leadership and described the U.S.–Israel relationship as exceptionally strong during his presidency. Netanyahu, in turn, openly welcomed the policies of the Trump administration and highlighted the close ties between the two governments.

This level of personal political alignment can play a significant role in shaping foreign policy decisions. When leaders share a strong political rapport, their governments may coordinate more closely on diplomatic initiatives, military cooperation, and strategic planning. Critics argue that such alignment can sometimes reduce the space for dissenting perspectives within international diplomacy.

2.  Regional Power Projection

Another perceived parallel relates to the role of alliances in projecting power within a region. The alliance between Hitler and Mussolini sought to reshape European geopolitics through territorial expansion and military conquest, eventually contributing to the outbreak of World War II.

In the modern Middle East, critics argue that strong strategic partnerships between powerful states can influence regional power balances and intensify existing rivalries. While the contexts are fundamentally different, analysts sometimes point to the ways in which military capabilities, diplomatic backing, and strategic alliances can reshape political dynamics across a region.

3.  Escalation Concerns

A third area of comparison involves fears about escalation. In the late 1930s, a series of regional crises in Europe gradually expanded into a global war as alliances drew multiple countries into the conflict.

Some analysts worry that persistent instability in the Middle East, combined with the involvement of major world powers, could theoretically create conditions in which localized conflicts expand beyond their immediate boundaries. These concerns are particularly relevant in a region where multiple rivalries intersect and where external powers maintain significant strategic interests.

Key Differences and Historical Context

Despite these perceived parallels, historians and political analysts widely emphasize that the differences between the two situations are substantial and should not be overlooked. The political systems, ideological foundations, and global structures of the twenty-first century differ dramatically from those of the interwar period.

Today’s international system includes institutions such as the United Nations, global economic interdependence, and complex diplomatic networks that help manage conflicts and encourage negotiation.

Additionally, the presence of nuclear weapons among major powers introduces a powerful deterrent that fundamentally shapes modern geopolitical calculations.

For these reasons, most scholars stress that historical analogies should be used carefully. While they can provide useful perspectives for analyzing political dynamics and potential risks, they cannot fully capture the complexities of contemporary global politics.

Nevertheless, the debate surrounding these comparisons reflects a broader concern about how alliances between influential leaders can shape the direction of regional conflicts and international diplomacy. By examining both the similarities and the differences between past and present partnerships, observers seek to better understand the forces that influence peace, conflict, and global stability.

The Middle East Crisis and Global Anxiety

The Middle East has long been regarded as one of the most geopolitically sensitive and strategically significant regions in the world. Situated at the crossroads of Europe, Asia, and Africa, the region has historically been a focal point of political competition, economic interests, and military strategy. Its vast energy resources, religious and cultural significance, and complex political landscape make it an area where local conflicts often carry global implications.

Over the decades, tensions involving Israel, Palestine, and Iran have become central components of regional instability. These disputes are not isolated struggles but are embedded within a wider network of alliances, rivalries, and ideological divisions. The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, for example, has persisted for generations and remains one of the most emotionally charged and politically complicated disputes in international relations. Meanwhile, tensions between Israel and Iran, often expressed through proxy conflicts and diplomatic confrontations, add another layer of complexity to the regional security environment.

These regional disputes frequently intersect with the strategic interests of major global powers. Countries such as the United States and Russia maintain significant political, military, and economic involvement in the region. European nations also maintain strong diplomatic and security interests, particularly because instability in the Middle East can have direct consequences for energy markets, migration patterns, and global security. As a result, conflicts that originate within the region rarely remain confined to local actors; instead, they tend to draw in external powers that seek to protect their strategic interests or influence the outcome of regional developments.

During periods of heightened tension, such as major military operations, political crises, or confrontations between rival states, concerns often arise about the possibility of broader escalation. History has shown that regional conflicts can sometimes expand when alliances activate or when miscalculations occur among competing powers. The complexity of the Middle Eastern geopolitical landscape increases the possibility that a localized crisis could trigger wider repercussions.

Several factors contribute to these concerns.

One major factor is the involvement of multiple state and non-state actors in regional conflicts. In addition to national governments, the Middle East hosts numerous armed groups, militias, and political movements that operate across borders and maintain their own alliances. These actors can influence events in unpredictable ways, sometimes escalating conflicts beyond the intentions of the governments involved.

Another important factor is the presence of strategic alliances that extend beyond the region. Middle Eastern states often maintain security partnerships with powerful countries outside the region. For example, alliances with global powers can involve military assistance, intelligence cooperation, and defense agreements. While such partnerships may provide security guarantees, they also create circumstances in which regional conflicts could potentially involve external powers if allies become directly engaged.

A further source of concern lies in the risk of miscalculation among heavily armed parties. The Middle East contains several countries with advanced military capabilities, sophisticated missile systems, and powerful conventional forces. In tense situations, misunderstandings, accidental encounters, or misinterpreted actions could escalate quickly, especially when rival states operate in close proximity or in contested areas.

Finally, the presence of nuclear-armed states among global stakeholders heightens the sense of global anxiety. Major powers that possess nuclear weapons such as the United States and Russia maintain interests and influence in the region. Although nuclear weapons are generally regarded as deterrents that discourage direct confrontation between nuclear-armed states, their existence also means that any major escalation involving these powers carries potentially catastrophic implications.

Taken together, these dynamics create a situation in which local conflicts in the Middle East can generate global concern. The region’s dense network of rivalries, alliances, and strategic interests makes it particularly vulnerable to crises that could reverberate far beyond its borders.

For many observers, the central worry is not only the persistence of regional conflict but also the possibility that a chain of escalating events could draw in larger powers and expand into a wider international confrontation. The interconnected nature of modern geopolitics ensures that developments in the Middle East continue to be watched closely by governments, analysts, and citizens around the world.

Lessons From the 20th Century

The historical memory of World War II continues to exert a profound influence on how historians, political scientists, and policy analysts interpret contemporary geopolitical developments. The devastation caused by that conflict, considered arguably as the most destructive war in human history, left a lasting imprint on global political consciousness. As a result, many observers regularly look back to the events of the early twentieth century when attempting to understand present-day international tensions.

The period leading up to World War II, particularly during the 1930s, is often studied as a cautionary example of how diplomatic failures, ideological extremism, and strategic alliances can combine to produce catastrophic outcomes. During that era, a series of aggressive actions by expansionist regimes, combined with hesitant or ineffective responses from other nations, gradually undermined the fragile peace that had followed World War I. The rise of authoritarian leaders such as Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy contributed to the formation of alliances that challenged the existing international order and encouraged territorial expansion.

Over time, these developments led to the breakdown of diplomatic restraint and the normalization of increasingly aggressive policies. Events such as the Anschluss in 1938, the Munich Agreement later that same year, and the invasion of Poland in 1939 illustrated how rapidly regional disputes could escalate into a wider war once diplomatic mechanisms failed.

From the perspective of modern analysts, several important lessons often emerge from this historical experience.

1.  Unchecked Escalation Can Spread Rapidly Across Borders

One of the most frequently cited lessons from the lead-up to World War II is the danger of allowing aggressive actions to proceed without effective international responses. In the 1930s, a series of territorial expansions and military interventions occurred in relatively quick succession. Each step appeared limited at first, but together they gradually destabilized the international system.

The annexation of territories, the militarization of contested regions, and the breakdown of diplomatic agreements created a chain reaction of escalating tensions. What began as localized political crises in Europe eventually evolved into a global conflict involving dozens of countries across multiple continents. This historical experience reminds contemporary observers that regional conflicts can expand rapidly when aggressive policies are left unchecked or when rival alliances become activated.

2.  Personal Alliances Between Leaders Can Significantly Influence International Policy

Another key lesson from the twentieth century concerns the role of personal relationships between political leaders in shaping international alliances and policy decisions. The close partnership between Hitler and Mussolini demonstrated how ideological alignment and mutual political support can reinforce aggressive strategies and strengthen geopolitical cooperation.

Such relationships often influence not only diplomatic rhetoric but also military coordination, economic collaboration, and strategic planning. When leaders share similar worldviews or political goals, their cooperation can accelerate policy initiatives and reduce internal opposition within their respective governments.

Modern political analysts frequently examine leadership dynamics for this reason. Personal rapport between leaders can sometimes facilitate diplomatic breakthroughs, but it can also contribute to the consolidation of political alliances that intensify geopolitical rivalries.

3.  Diplomatic Institutions and Conflict-Resolution Mechanisms Are Crucial

Perhaps the most enduring lesson of the twentieth century is the importance of strong diplomatic institutions and effective mechanisms for resolving international disputes. The failure of earlier international organizations, such as the League of Nations, to prevent aggression during the 1930s demonstrated the limitations of institutions that lacked enforcement power and widespread political support.

In response to these shortcomings, the international community created new organizations after World War II designed to promote cooperation and reduce the likelihood of future global conflicts. Among the most prominent of these institutions is the United Nations, which was established to provide a forum for diplomacy, conflict resolution, and collective security.

Although international organizations cannot eliminate conflict entirely, they play a crucial role in facilitating dialogue, coordinating humanitarian responses, and establishing international norms that discourage unilateral aggression.

Relevance to Contemporary Geopolitics

These historical lessons continue to shape contemporary debates about global security and regional conflicts. Analysts, policymakers, and commentators frequently refer to the experiences of the 1930s and 1940s when discussing current tensions in regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and East Asia.

The purpose of invoking these historical parallels is not necessarily to suggest that modern conflicts will unfold in exactly the same way as those of the past. Rather, the aim is to highlight patterns of escalation, alliance formation, and diplomatic breakdown that have previously led to devastating outcomes.

In discussions about ongoing crises in the Middle East, these lessons are often cited as reminders of the importance of diplomacy, restraint, and international cooperation. By examining the successes and failures of the past, policymakers and analysts hope to identify strategies that can prevent regional conflicts from expanding into broader international confrontations.

Ultimately, the legacy of World War II continues to serve as a powerful warning about the potential consequences of geopolitical rivalry, unchecked aggression, and the breakdown of diplomacy. Remembering these lessons remains an essential part of the effort to maintain global stability in an increasingly interconnected world.

Conclusion: The Power and Limits of Historical Analogies

Throughout modern political discourse, historical analogies are often used to interpret present-day events. Comparisons between contemporary political alliances and those of the 1930s reveal deep anxieties about the stability of the international order. Periods of geopolitical tension naturally encourage observers to look backward for patterns that might explain emerging power alignments. In this context, critics have sometimes interpreted the partnership between Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu as emblematic of a forceful geopolitical alignment that, in their view, could intensify regional tensions in the Middle East and reshape the balance of power.

Such comparisons frequently evoke memories of the alliances formed during the 1930s between leaders like Adolf Hitler in Germany and Benito Mussolini in Italy. These historical parallels can be powerful rhetorical tools because they draw on widely recognized narratives about the origins of global conflict and the dangers of aggressive nationalism. By invoking the political climate that preceded World War II, commentators attempt to highlight the potential risks of strong bilateral alliances, assertive foreign policy positions, and escalating regional confrontations.

However, historical analogies must be applied with caution. While certain political dynamics such as nationalism, strategic rivalry, and ideological polarisation can recur across eras, the global political system today differs profoundly from that of the early twentieth century. The international landscape that emerged after World War II includes institutions designed specifically to prevent large-scale conflict, most notably the United Nations and a wide network of diplomatic and economic frameworks that encourage cooperation and conflict resolution. In addition, international norms surrounding sovereignty, human rights, and collective security have become far more deeply institutionalized.

Economic globalization also represents a major structural difference. Modern economies are tightly interdependent through trade, finance, and technology networks that span continents. Unlike the relatively fragmented economic system of the 1930s, today’s global markets create strong incentives for stability and cooperation, since major conflicts could disrupt supply chains, financial systems, and energy markets worldwide. These forms of interdependence act as significant constraints on state behavior, making the international environment far more complex than the one that existed during the rise of authoritarian alliances in interwar Europe.

Nevertheless, the enduring value of history lies in its ability to provide warnings as well as insights. The tragedies of the twentieth century, particularly the devastation of World War II, serve as powerful reminders of how political alliances, regional conflicts, and strategic miscalculations can spiral into broader confrontations. Even if contemporary geopolitical relationships differ fundamentally from those of the past, the lessons drawn from earlier crises remain relevant for policymakers and observers alike.

Ultimately, historical comparisons are most useful not when they attempt to equate different eras directly, but when they encourage vigilance and critical reflection. By examining past failures and successes, societies can better recognize warning signs and avoid repeating destructive patterns.

Whether or not modern partnerships truly mirror those of earlier periods, the central imperative remains unchanged: managing regional tensions responsibly, strengthening international institutions, and ensuring that local crises do not escalate into global catastrophe.

*

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution.

Prof. Ruel F. Pepa is a Filipino philosopher based in Madrid, Spain. A retired academic (Associate Professor IV), he taught Philosophy and Social Sciences for more than fifteen years at Trinity University of Asia, an Anglican university in the Philippines. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

On Historical Alliances and the Hitler–Mussolini Axis

1. Bosworth, R. J. B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Fascist Dictatorship, 1915–1945. New York: Penguin Books,
2. Kallis, Fascist Ideology: Territory and Expansionism in Italy and Germany, 1922–1945. London: Routledge, 2000.
3. Knox, To the Threshold of Power, 1922–1939: Origins and Dynamics of the Fascist and National Socialist Dictatorships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.
4. Overy, Richard. The Road to War. London: Allen Lane, 1989.
5. Rees, The Nazis: A Warning From History. New York: New Press, 1997.
6. Roberts, The ‘Hitler–Mussolini’ Alliance: The Relationship Between the Rulers of Germany and Italy, 1934–1940. Journal of Contemporary History 48, no. 1 (2013): 3–33.

B.  On International Alliances, Power Politics, and Historical Analogies

7. Erickson, John, and Michael Hogan, eds. The Aftermath of War: Allied Occupation and Postwar Reconstruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
8. Gaddis, John The Landscape of History: How Historians Map the Past. New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.
9. Kissinger, Diplomacy. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1994.
10. Mearsheimer, John The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. Updated ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2014.
11. Snyder, Jack L. Myths of Empire: Domestic Politics and International Ambition. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press,

C.  On Trump–Netanyahu Relations and U.S.–Israel Policy

13. Alterman, Jon B. Trump’s Foreign Policy and the Middle East. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies,
14. Berman, Ilan, and Yael Lempert. Trump, Netanyahu, and the U.S.–Israel Relationship: From Strategic Partners to Political Allies? Washington, DC: Hudson Institute, 2019.
15. Chomsky, Noam, and Gilbert Perilous Power: The Middle East & U.S. Foreign Policy. New York: Paradigm Publishers, 2016.
16. Erdogan, Ayfer and Lourdes Habash. “U.S. Policy Toward the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict under the Trump Administration: Continuity or Change?” 
17. Feltman, Jeff, et The New Politics of the Middle East: America’s Role in a Changing Region. Washington D. C.: Foreign Policy at Brookings, 2018.
18. Kupchan, Charles Isolationism: A History of America’s Efforts to Shield Itself from the World. New York: Oxford University Press, 2020. (For broader U.S. strategic context.)

D.  On Jerusalem, U.S. Diplomacy, and Abraham Accords 00

18. Fakhro, The Abraham Accords: The Gulf States, Israel, and the Limits of Normalization. New York: Columbia University Press, 2024.
19. Gorenberg, The Unmaking of Israel. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2011.
20. Quandt, William Peace Process: American Diplomacy and the Arab–Israeli Conflict Since 1967. Updated ed. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2005.
21. Ross, Doomed to Succeed: The U.S.–Israel Relationship from Truman to Obama. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

E.  On Theoretical and Comparative Perspectives

23. Walt, Stephen The Origins of Alliances. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987.
24. Wohlforth, William C. The Elusive Balance: Power and Perceptions During the Cold War. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993.
25. Zakaria, The Post‑American World. 2nd ed. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011.

Featured image source: Two prominent fascist leaders – Italy’s Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.