In the long and complicated history of American engagement in the Middle East, few relationships have tested the limits of alliance and conscience more acutely than the one between Washington and Jerusalem during the Gaza conflict. Brett McGurk, who served as President Biden's senior architect of Middle East policy, is now offering an account of what those private deliberations actually contained — including moments when the president came closer than the public knew to fundamentally altering American support for Israel. His testimony invites a reckoning with the distance that so often exists
Biden Nearly Cut Off Netanyahu Over Gaza, McGurk Reveals
The moment when leverage existed to push back harder
Mark
So McGurk is saying Biden actually considered cutting off aid to Netanyahu? That seems like a pretty significant thing to have kept quiet about.
Mimi
It does. And the fact that he's talking about it now suggests he thinks the public should understand how seriously the administration took these concerns. These weren't casual conversations—they were moments where real leverage was being considered.
Luke
But here's what I want to know: did Biden actually threaten to cut aid, or did he just think about it? There's a difference between "nearly cut off" and "considered cutting off." The headline is doing a lot of work there.
Mimi
That's fair. McGurk is describing moments when the option was genuinely on the table, when it was being discussed as a real possibility. Whether Biden actually communicated that threat to Netanyahu is a different question.
Mark
Why would McGurk be revealing this now, years later? What's the timing about?
Mimi
Probably because the debate about U.S. accountability in Gaza is still ongoing. By offering an insider account, he's trying to establish that the administration did grapple with these questions seriously, even if the ultimate policy didn't change.
Luke
But we should be careful about what "grappling seriously" actually means. Did it result in any conditions on aid? Any actual leverage applied? Or was it just internal debate that ended with business as usual?
Mark
So the real question is whether any of this internal concern translated into actual policy changes.
Mimi
Exactly. McGurk's account shows the tension existed. Whether that tension produced meaningful results is what still needs to be examined.
Luke
And that's the gap we need to hold. The testimony is valuable for understanding what was discussed. But it doesn't automatically tell us whether those discussions changed anything about what actually happened on the ground.
Il Polso
- McGurk's firsthand account reveals that Biden seriously considered conditioning or cutting off military aid to Israel at multiple points during the Gaza war — a rupture that never came but came closer than anyone publicly acknowledged.
- The tension inside the White House was real and sustained: officials were caught between preserving a strategically vital alliance and exercising moral and political pressure over the conduct of military operations with devastating civilian consequences.
- Every private exchange between Biden and Netanyahu carried enormous weight, as the question of continued American support was not a settled matter but an active, contested calculation made under pressure and with incomplete information.
- The administration's leverage was real but constrained — military coordination, intelligence ties, and the credibility of American commitments globally all made threatening Israel a costly move, even for a president genuinely troubled by what he was seeing.
- McGurk's decision to speak publicly now is itself a signal — senior advisers rarely disclose moments of near-rupture, and his willingness to do so suggests both a sense of historical obligation and a desire to document how seriously the administration engaged with questions it could not fully resolve.
- His testimony lands as an ongoing debate about U.S. Middle East policy and military aid accountability intensifies, offering rare interior evidence that concern existed at the highest levels — even when it did not translate into changed policy.
In the long and complicated history of American engagement in the Middle East, few relationships have tested the limits of alliance and conscience more acutely than the one between Washington and Jerusalem during the Gaza conflict. Brett McGurk, who served as President Biden's senior architect of Middle East policy, is now offering an account of what those private deliberations actually contained — including moments when the president came closer than the public knew to fundamentally altering American support for Israel. His testimony invites a reckoning with the distance that so often exists between what governments feel and what they ultimately do.
Brett McGurk spent years inside the rooms where American decisions about Gaza were made. As President Biden's top Middle East adviser, he was present for the high-stakes exchanges between the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu — not ceremonial meetings, but moments of genuine friction where the future of American support was genuinely in question. Now, for the first time, he is describing what those conversations actually looked like.
The most striking element of McGurk's account is how close Biden came to altering the terms of that support. There were instances, he says, when the president seriously weighed cutting off or conditioning aid in ways that would have represented a historic shift in the relationship. That these moments occurred at all — that they were debated and nearly acted upon — speaks to the depth of frustration within the administration over Israeli military strategy and its humanitarian toll.
What McGurk describes is a constant tension between two imperatives: preserving the U.S.-Israel alliance, which the administration viewed as strategically essential, and using American leverage to push back against conduct that troubled them. These were not abstract debates. They were decisions made under time pressure, with incomplete information, and with the knowledge that real lives hung in the balance.
The constraints were also real. The relationship with Israel involves military coordination, intelligence sharing, and institutional ties that cannot be quickly unwound. Threatening to cut aid carries costs for American credibility and regional interests. Understanding those constraints does not settle the question of whether the right choices were made — but it explains why a president genuinely troubled by what he was witnessing might still choose to maintain support.
McGurk's willingness to speak publicly is itself notable. Senior advisers rarely disclose moments of near-rupture in private diplomacy. That he is doing so now suggests he believes these events carry historical weight — and perhaps that he wants the record to reflect how seriously the administration grappled with questions it could not fully resolve. His testimony does not offer easy answers, but it does offer something rarer: an honest account of how the calculations were actually made.
Brett McGurk spent years as the architect of American Middle East policy under President Biden, sitting in the rooms where the most consequential decisions about Gaza were made. Now, for the first time, he is describing what those conversations actually looked like—the moments of genuine friction, the calculations that shaped aid decisions, the instances when the relationship between Washington and Jerusalem came closer to breaking than the public record suggested.
McGurk's account arrives as a rare window into the mechanics of how the White House managed one of its most fraught diplomatic relationships. As the president's top adviser on Middle Eastern affairs, he was present for the high-stakes exchanges between Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the conduct of military operations in Gaza. These were not ceremonial meetings or carefully scripted public appearances. They were moments of real tension, where the question of continued American support hung in the balance.
The most striking revelation from McGurk's testimony concerns how close Biden came to fundamentally altering the terms of that support. There were instances, according to McGurk's account, when the president seriously considered cutting off aid or conditioning it in ways that would have represented a dramatic shift in the relationship. The fact that these moments occurred at all—that they were discussed, debated, and nearly acted upon—suggests the depth of frustration within the administration over Israeli military strategy and its humanitarian consequences.
What McGurk describes is the constant tension between two competing imperatives: maintaining the U.S.-Israel alliance, which Biden administration officials viewed as strategically essential, and exercising leverage to influence Israeli conduct in ways that might reduce civilian harm or constrain military operations. This is not a new dilemma in American foreign policy, but the Gaza conflict forced it into sharper relief than it had been in decades. Every decision about military aid, every statement of support, every private conversation carried weight because the stakes were so visible and so immediate.
The insider perspective McGurk provides reveals how the administration weighed these pressures. There were moments when officials believed the leverage existed to push back harder. There were other moments when they calculated that pushing too hard risked fracturing the alliance entirely. These were not abstract policy debates conducted in think tanks or academic seminars. They were real decisions made under time pressure, with incomplete information, and with the knowledge that whatever choice was made would have consequences for people on the ground.
McGurk's willingness to speak publicly about these internal deliberations is itself significant. Senior advisers to sitting presidents rarely offer detailed accounts of private diplomatic conversations, particularly ones that involve moments of conflict or near-rupture. That he is doing so now suggests both the historical weight he believes these events carry and perhaps a desire to establish a record of how seriously the administration took questions about Israeli military conduct, even if that seriousness did not always translate into changed policy.
The testimony also illuminates the constraints under which American policymakers operated. The relationship with Israel is not one that can be casually recalibrated. It involves military coordination, intelligence sharing, and deep institutional connections that cannot be quickly rewired. Threatening to cut off aid is not a costless move—it carries risks for American interests in the region and for the credibility of American commitments elsewhere. Understanding these constraints does not necessarily justify the choices made, but it does explain why even a president genuinely troubled by aspects of Israeli military conduct might ultimately choose to maintain support rather than withdraw it.
As debates continue over whether the United States struck the right balance between alliance management and accountability, McGurk's account provides essential texture. It shows that the question was not whether officials cared about the humanitarian dimensions of the conflict—the evidence suggests they did—but rather how to translate that concern into policy when the tools available were limited and the risks of using them were substantial. The public will now have to reckon with what McGurk's testimony reveals about how those calculations were actually made.
Citazioni salienti
McGurk described moments when the president seriously considered cutting off aid or conditioning it in ways that would have represented a dramatic shift in the relationship— McGurk's testimony, as reported
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The New York Times ↗