Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not necessarily irrational for putting so many of Israel’s eggs in the Trump basket. President Trump is not the first American president to declare himself pro-Israel. Since the 1980s, it’s been commonplace and politically beneficial for leaders of both parties to demonstrate their pro-Israel bona fides on the campaign trail. None, however, have delivered quite as many political victories for Israel in office as Trump has: the recognition of Jerusalem as the country’s capital, the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement, and the recognition of Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights.

The main risk of this strategy, or at least the one that is cited by critics the most, is that it could endanger long-term support for Israel among Democrats. This is true and obvious enough, but Israeli officials are now becoming attuned to a more immediate risk, which is Trump himself “turning” on them in the form of new nuclear agreement with Iran that leaves Israel worse off than it was before. I think this is unlikely, but the theory is compelling.

People around Netanyahu fear that Trump’s hostility towards the Iranian regime could quickly turn to conviviality, just as it did with Kim Jung-Un and North Korea. A few words of praise in the Times or CNN or meeting with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani may prompt Trump to concede too much in the hopes of reaching a “deal” with his name on it.

Who knows: the tantalizing prospect of a Nobel Peace Prize, a totem for which Trump has evinced a ravenous desire, could even turn out to be worth more than the forlorn Ramat Trump settlement in the Golan Heights.

In response to such an eventuality, Israel would have few options. Unlike in 2015, when the Iran agreement came into effect, it will not even have a significant minority of sympathetic members of Congress. Republicans will be reluctant to break from Trump and moderate Democrats will be more likely to highlight the erratic inconsistency of Trump’s behavior on the world stage than take a strong position one way or the other.

Trump’s volatile behavior during the G7 summit in Biarritz, France this weekend, including stating his willingness to negotiate with the Iranian regime without preconditions, is what sparked this round of anxiety. Trump’s insouciance in the face of Russian and North Korean threats toward American allies makes matters worse for Israel.

Apparently, an “America First” foreign policy has retained its original dark meaning: America acts to protect America alone and the interests of allies, as well as important international norms, are dispensable at best. This is a message broadcast to every benighted revisionist power in the world in Trump-style neon lights. Could Israel be the next country abandoned?

There are strong grounds for doubt. First, the administration’s hawks, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo, appear more committed to their “maximum pressure” policy on Iran than they are to their tougher (compared to Trump) stances on Russia and North Korea. Second, the advocacy infrastructure in support of these policies is still greatly influential in the Republican Party, far more influential than the handful of Iran doves led by Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky. While the Iranian announcement of sanctions against the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) was troubling and an affront to intellectual freedom, it was not surprising in this context.

There is also little evidence the Iranians are interested in a new deal. French President Emmanuel Macron did an admirable job of convening high level talks on the issue during the G7 summit, but they ultimately proved fruitless: on Tuesday, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani demanded American sanctions be lifted before any meeting or discussion takes place. Iranian hardliners, on the ascent and aligned with the Supreme Leader, are warning against new talks.

Still, even if the worst fears are exaggerated, Trump’s mercurial weekend in France exposed the pitfalls of Israel’s metaphorical “hug” of the administration. It’s not that Trump is a latter-day Cyrus the Great, as Netanyahu slavishly put it; rather, Israel placed a bet in hopes that it would be the exception to the rule for how Trump treats allies in need of American assistance. It’s clearly paid off so far, but the price for such a high-risk and high-reward strategy is widespread anger and discontent among congressional Democrats. Almost all of them disagree with Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, but they are nearly unanimous in their disgust for how the two congresswomen were treated by Trump and the Israeli government.

Netanyahu’s successor would be wise to relearn the modest predicability of the bipartisan model, which is still touted by AIPAC and other American supporters of Israel. It did not bring extraordinary rewards like Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, but it more than made up for that in fewer sleepless nights and less drama in Washington.