History sometimes delivers ironies that shape global politics. The United States, the world’s most powerful country, elected a president described by his own top advisor as “as dumb as shit.” Israel, a far smaller state, is led by a man with an IQ estimated above 140, a survivor of decades in office, and a master of manipulation. This imbalance matters. One state has size and resources, the other has cunning and calculation. Together, they shaped the Middle East in ways no one could ignore.
Netanyahu’s intelligence and methods
Benjamin Netanyahu studied architecture and later political science at MIT. He proved early that his mind works analytically, with patience and strategic depth. In politics, he survived endless scandals, betrayals, and challenges. Where others fell, he remained.
Foreign leaders describe his behavior as cold, ruthless, and even sociopathic. He lies when useful, pressures relentlessly, and exploits every weakness. He knows when to flatter, when to threaten, and when to stall for time. With American presidents, European heads of state, and Arab rulers, Netanyahu has consistently outplayed his opponents. His skill turned Israel into a state that could dictate terms to much larger powers.
Gary Cohn’s perspective on Trump
Gary Cohn, a highly intelligent and talented economic advisor who built his career at Goldman Sachs, worked closely with Donald Trump. Known for his sharp analytic skills, Cohn saw Trump from inside the White House. His verdict was devastating: Trump was “as dumb as shit.”
Cohn’s judgment carried weight. He was trained to analyze risk, numbers, and people at the highest levels of finance. He knew how to process information and make decisions under pressure. When a man like that dismisses a president’s intellect, it speaks volumes. It revealed what many already suspected: Trump lacked not only depth but even the ability to process complex issues.
Trump’s weakness
Trump relied on instinct, television appearances, and gut reactions. He lacked the attention span for detailed briefings. He valued flattery over substance and spectacle over reality. When confronted with complex problems, he reduced them to slogans. He could not compete with someone like Netanyahu, who thought ten moves ahead.
While Netanyahu played political chess, Trump played media checkers. His chaotic style amused his base but weakened the global position of the United States. Allies were confused, adversaries were emboldened, and opportunists like Netanyahu knew how to exploit him.
The clientelist tie
The U.S.–Israel relationship has long been described as patron and client. In theory, America is the patron, Israel the client. In practice, it often works the other way around. A smart Israeli leader manipulates a weak American one. Lobbying networks, financial elites, and cultural alliances reinforce this imbalance.
Netanyahu understood how to push Trump. He secured recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, he gained support for settlements. He extracted concessions without serious resistance. A dumb president, in the hands of a cunning client, became an asset rather than a master.
A thought experiment: Reversed roles
Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a U.S. president with Netanyahu’s IQ, his long-term planning, and his cold pragmatism. Such a president might cut or weaken the clientelist tie. He might force Israel to restrain itself, to negotiate, or to face consequences.
Now imagine Israel led by a leader as incompetent as Trump. A man obsessed with image, too easily flattered, incapable of strategic planning. In that world, the United States would have more space to act. Israel’s freedom to expand settlements, wage wars, or defy international law would shrink.
The irony is brutal: the most powerful country is led by the least capable man, while the smaller country is led by one of the most manipulative.
Broader implications
This contrast reveals a deep problem in democracy. People reward charisma, spectacle, and promises rather than intelligence, planning, and depth. A small but shrewd state can exploit a large but badly led one. Intelligence combined with ruthlessness outweighs size, money, and even military power.
The U.S. electorate gave the world a president who could not handle complexity. Israel’s electorate gave itself a leader who could handle too much. The imbalance produced outcomes that reshaped the Middle East and eroded America’s credibility.
If America had an intelligent president
Imagine if the United States had a president with the intelligence, discipline, and long-term vision of Netanyahu. The picture of American politics would be radically different.
Such a president would cut through the noise. Lobbyists, donors, and clientelist networks would no longer dictate foreign policy with the same grip. Decisions would be guided by strategy, not impulse. America would still have allies, but it would not be trapped in webs of manipulation.
On the domestic front, the difference would be even sharper. An intelligent president would recognize inequality not as rhetoric but as a structural danger. He would use the power of policy to address healthcare, education, and wages with reasoned solutions instead of slogans. Tax policy would not be written as a gift to the richest. Infrastructure would not crumble while billions vanished into wars abroad. Evidence, not spectacle, would drive reforms.
Division at home would look different too. A smarter leader would understand that polarization weakens a republic. He would use intellect to negotiate, to build coalitions, and to calm tensions, not inflame them for personal gain. Populist rage would not be the tool of government; reason would.
In foreign policy, such a president would restrain Israel rather than reward it for every provocation. Settlements would not expand with American blessing. Aid would come with strict conditions. Diplomacy would replace blind loyalty. Instead of following Israel’s lead, Washington would set the terms.
Most importantly, the world would see a United States that acted with clarity. Allies would respect it, adversaries would fear it, and opportunists would not exploit it. The imbalance that gave Netanyahu the upper hand would vanish. America would once again lead from strength, not stumble from weakness.
Conclusion: Reversed roles and their meaning
History is shaped not only by armies, money, or resources but also by the intelligence of those who lead. The United States, with all its power, elected a president who could not handle complexity, while Israel, with far fewer resources, trusted a leader who mastered manipulation. That mismatch defined an era.
But the thought experiment of reversed roles shows what could have been. A smart U.S. president might have reined in lobbyists, restrained Israel, and healed domestic divisions with policy grounded in reason. Healthcare would not remain broken, education would not sink under neglect, and wages would not stagnate while the rich grew fatter. Taxation would be fairer, infrastructure stronger, and science better supported. Instead of slogans, Americans would have seen pragmatic reforms that raised living standards and reduced inequality.
At the same time, a dumb Israeli leader would have weakened Tel Aviv’s grip, given Washington space to impose conditions, and reshaped the balance in the Middle East. Settlements would stall, provocations would fade, and diplomacy could reclaim ground lost to manipulation.
The lesson is clear. Intelligence matters more than size. A cunning leader can make a small country punch above its weight. A foolish leader can make a superpower stumble. When the wrong minds take the stage, history bends toward imbalance, exploitation, and wasted chances. When the right ones lead, nations prosper at home and act responsibly abroad.
Leave a Reply