Unconditional American support for Israel is putting significant pressure on Republicans in the midterm congressional elections on November 3, despite the huge amounts of money pumped by the Israeli lobby to enhance the chances of some of them against Democratic candidates classified as progressive, or even socialists.
The main pressure on the Republicans is due to the significant rise in the prices of petroleum derivatives and agricultural fertilizers, and consequently the prices of consumer goods, due to the war with Iran, and the accompanying closure of the Strait of Hormuz. However, there are also significant effects of the Israeli war in Gaza and Lebanon, which raised an important part of American public opinion against the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This prompted the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) to engage more and more publicly in the battles currently taking place, in preparation for next month's elections. It has already become one of the most funded entities in the midterm elections, which raises a lot of controversy among voters, and between the Republican and Democratic parties.
AIPAC raised $233 million to support Israel's allies and attack its opponents, despite the shifts in American public opinion.
According to the New York Times, AIPAC's decision to become heavily involved in election campaigns "alienated some of its former allies and prompted others to evade its support," noting that "some candidates have taken opposition to AIPAC as a badge of honor. Some of them not only reject its money, but also refuse to accept any funding from its donors."
At a time when AIPAC is facing its biggest crisis in years, and skepticism even from some of its allies, its leaders are steadfast in their position, according to interviews with more than thirty donors, former board members, and political strategists working with the group. They described their mission as a long-term strategy: electing a Congress that would help confront what they see as existential threats to Israel from Iran and other hostile countries.
AIPAC is currently conducting a strategic review of its political operations and studying how to adapt to the changing political landscape, something it confirms it does regularly. But its leaders have made clear that its political action committee — and the huge spending on political campaigns that accompany it — will remain a key component of their strategy.
Changing opinions
AIPAC Political Action Committee spokesman Patrick Dorton admitted that “there are events that have greatly contributed to accelerating the change in opinions about Israel.”
Although AIPAC achieved some successes, it also suffered defeats, most notably during the primary elections when it spent about $33 million in a failed attempt to defeat the Democratic candidate for a Michigan Senate seat, Abdel Rahman Al-Sayyed.
According to a recent poll conducted by Fox News, 55 percent of voters in Michigan do not want the United States to continue providing aid to Israel. Although it is now spending huge sums of money to prevent his election, Abdul Rahman Al-Sayed is ahead of his Republican rival, Mike Rogers, in the polls.
This comes after it has been rumored for decades that US support for Israel is one of the constants upon which Republicans and Democrats agree. However, this consensus began to fade during the era of former President Barack Obama, especially after the nuclear agreement he signed with Iran in 2015, despite the opposition of Israel and AIPAC.
In polls conducted six months ago, 73 percent of Republicans approved of Trump's handling of the conflict with Iran, but that percentage has now fallen to 60 percent. 53 percent of Republicans under the age of 45 do not approve of the Trump administration's policy toward Iran. This percentage is higher among young Republicans.
Republicans running for the House of Representatives, the Senate, and state governors in next November's elections are busy with their own problems. Polls indicate that Democrats may achieve a majority in the Senate as well as in the House of Representatives.
The noticeable decline in Republican voters' support for Trump, who dragged the United States into a war with Iran out of protecting Israel, is worrying politicians running for the Senate. Many candidates call on Trump to end the war with Iran. Even Mike Rogers, a pro-Israel hawk and candidate in Michigan, said in a propaganda video he posted: “The war with Iran must end, and quickly.”
Stay away from AIPAC
Rogers also avoided receiving direct support from AIPAC. Trump had won Michigan, one of the swing states that includes the largest Arab-American community in the United States, in the 2024 elections, because of his promise to end the war in Gaza and Lebanon.
As for Democrats, most of them are already avoiding association with AIPAC, which shows that pro-Israel lobby groups are suffering a significant decline in their American standing.
Senator Thom Tillis, who noted that support for the Iran war among Republican voters has declined significantly, warns that this development has become a major political problem for Republican candidates and the Republican Party.
The resort of even Trump's staunchest supporters to maneuvers to distance themselves from Israel in the hope of winning the elections reflects the negative change in American public opinion despite the massive financial injection from pro-Israel lobbies in the United States.
There are increasing indications that the administration of US President Donald Trump is rearranging its foreign relations, giving priority to the Western Hemisphere and putting European partnerships before new political and security tests.
Between the transfer of funds allocated to European and Arab countries to countries in Latin America earlier this week, and the exclusion of prominent allies from a meeting discussing the future of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), concern is mounting about Washington’s move to selective dealing with its partners. Despite the different nature of the two steps, their simultaneity raises questions about the criteria for distributing American support, the limits of the administration’s authority to change the direction of funds approved by Congress, and Europe’s position in its strategic calculations.
Money changes its destination
The Washington Post revealed that the administration decided to transfer $52 million in military aid allocated to Slovakia, North Macedonia, Tunisia, and Iraq to Panama, Peru, Ecuador, and Colombia. It informed Congress to proceed with the step, despite the objection of Senator Jeanne Shaheen and Representative Gregory Meeks, the two highest-ranking Democrats on the Foreign Relations Committees of the Senate and House of Representatives, who requested its suspension.
The legal objection is focused on the funds allocated to the two European countries, because they were approved within complementary legislation related to the Ukraine war. As for funding for Tunisia and Iraq, it comes from different legislation and is not subject to the same restrictions. This is an essential distinction when accusing the administration of overstepping the will of lawmakers.
In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Shaheen and Meeks considered that the executive authority does not have absolute freedom to transfer funds to countries and priorities that are not related to the purpose set by Congress. They pointed out that the administration did not clarify how the funding of the four Latin countries responds to the needs of the countries affected by the Ukrainian war.
These allocations date back to 2022, when Washington sought to support countries that help Kiev, and encourage the replacement of Russian equipment with American weapons. Therefore, the dispute goes beyond the value of the money to the fate of a policy that linked support for Ukraine to weakening dependence on Russian military industries.
The priority of the American neighborhood
The US State Department defends the transfer of funds after it is consistent with the National Security Strategy, and says that the funds will help combat what it calls “drug-related terrorism,” secure the Panama Canal, strengthen security partnerships, and confront the military influence of adversaries in the region. But it did not answer lawmakers’ objection related to legal restrictions on the use of allocations.
This justification places the decision within a broader trend towards presenting the American neighborhood in other arenas. This approach is consistent with Trump’s speech about reviving the “Monroe Doctrine,” and Rubio’s call to invest in opportunities and partnerships that the administration believes have been neglected by Washington.
The identity of the beneficiary governments acquires an additional political significance, as the newspaper’s report describes them as tending to conservatism, and refers in particular to the closeness of the governments of Colombia and Ecuador to the administration, and their responsiveness to demands for strengthening cooperation against drugs. This fuels suspicions that political rapprochement has become influential in the distribution of aid.
However, these data are not sufficient to conclude that the transfer is an ideological reward; The administration provides specific security goals. The issue raised by Democrats remains the extent to which these goals may be financed from appropriations allocated by Congress for other purposes, especially since Trump has ignored similar previous objections.
As for Europe, Jeremy Shapiro, director of research at the European Council on Foreign Relations, believes that the step will be read as an indication of the administration’s priorities, and will reinforce the fear of abandonment by the Europeans if they do not meet its expectations, especially regarding Iran.
Allies outside the NATO meeting
This concern intersects with what Politico revealed about Britain, France, and the Baltic states not being invited to a meeting in Poland this month, led by Pentagon policy official Albridge Colby, to discuss the future of NATO. The meeting is a limited working group, not an official NATO summit, but the absence of major military powers has raised questions about the criteria for participation.
The formula known as the “Bergen Group” includes Norway, Sweden, Finland, Germany and the Netherlands. Participants confirm that its goal is to formulate ideas that will later be presented to the entire alliance, while Colby says that it aims to strengthen European capabilities and make the alliance more sustainable.
However, explaining the choice by defense spending alone does not dispel the objections, because those excluded include countries with important military contributions. The Pentagon or the White House did not provide an explanation that would remove this ambiguity, according to the newspaper.
The move recalls previous threats to punish allies who do not support Trump's priorities, especially the war on Iran. But it does not prove in itself that the list of invitees was drawn up on the basis of the position on that war.
The two cases reveal a common concern: the decline in the ability to predict American behavior. When the direction of funding changes over the objection of legislators, and the criteria for engaging allies remain ambiguous, trust itself becomes tested. The advanced European question then is whether raising spending and shouldering the defense burden will ensure a stable partnership, or whether American support will become linked to a political consensus that changes from one file to another.
