By Dawson Chang and Sarina Khani

On June 13, 2025, Israel launched over 100 drone strikes onto Iranian territory, targeting key nuclear facilities, nuclear scientists, and military leaders. The attack diverged from American interests: U.S. and Iranian officials had planned to discuss a deal that would have scaled down Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for U.S. removal of sanctions on Iran. However, due to Israel’s attack, the meeting was cancelled. Although Israel notified Washington shortly before the strike, the attack was an “independent decision of Israel,” according to Israel’s U.N. Ambassador. Several days later on June 21, the U.S. launched Operation Midnight Hammer, attacking three major nuclear facilities in Iran.

The 2025 Israel-Iran war highlighted a core dilemma in U.S. foreign policy: for decades, Washington has treated Israel as a reliable partner in the Middle East to advance shared strategic interests. Yet Israel’s increasingly assertive, brutal, and independent security strategy has pulled the U.S. into regional conflicts, undermining Washington’s diplomatic flexibility and credibility as a mediator.

Israel’s security strategy, known as the “Iron Wall” doctrine, is rooted in deterrence. It states that peace in the Middle East depends on neighboring states’ acceptance of Israel’s existence, not by diplomacy but rather by Israel’s overwhelming military strength.⁶ Over the past two decades, Israel’s approach has resulted in continuous, small-scale military conflicts. This practice has been referred to as “campaign between wars.” While this strategy has historically reinforced Israel’s defensive strength, it has also entrenched cycles of retaliation, prevented long-term political resolutions, and complicated U.S. efforts to engage with the region diplomatically.

Over time, Israel came to view Iran as the primary threat to its security. Israeli policymakers frame Iran’s nuclear ambitions and proxy networks–such as Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen–as existential threats, justifying preemptive military action. However, Israel has increasingly broadened its definition of existential threats to include any militia, state, or movement that opposes its objectives.

This expansion of Israeli militarism has furthered regional instability and limited Washington’s ability to pursue diplomatic solutions. In April 2024, Israel’s strike on Iran’s consulate in Damascus triggered Tehran’s first direct missile barrage against Israeli territory at a moment when U.S. officials were engaged in backchannel talks on sanctions relief and nuclear safeguards. By provoking Iran at such a critical diplomatic point, Israel effectively sabotaged U.S. efforts to negotiate peacefully. Similarly, in September 2025, Israel’s strike on Hamas negotiators in Qatar, a U.S. ally and regional mediator, damaged the U.S.’s reliability as a partner and exposed the limits of Washington’s influence over Israeli military planning. In June 2025, American participation in Operation Midnight Hammer—during which the United States launched strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan—demonstrated how Washington’s commitment to its alliance with Israel can override broader U.S. policy goals. This included the Trump administration’s original “America First” approach, which had warned against costly Middle Eastern interventions.

The Operation Midnight Hammer strikes marked a significant turning point in an already shaky U.S.–Iran relationship. Decades of indirect proxy conflicts and small-scale military actions finally boiled over into a direct strike on Iranian soil, laying a dangerous precedent for the region and its future stability. Given the operation’s lack of long-term success, as it only set Iran’s nuclear program back by less than two years, the strikes prompted broader concerns about the U.S.’s credibility as a mediator in the region and whether Washington accurately weighed the strategic costs of assisting Israel’s military campaign. 

Israel’s aggressive actions have also impacted regional perceptions of the West. The war in Gaza, expanding West Bank settlements, and repeated Israeli strikes and ground offensives in Lebanon and Syria, along with the Doha strike that killed Hamas negotiators reportedly involved in mediation, have altered Israel’s regional image. For Gulf states, Turkey, and other key actors, Israel has moved from a potential partner to a destabilizing force. This shift is so pronounced that even Oman’s foreign minister named Israel, not Iran, as the region’s chief source of instability. Arab public support for Israel’s actions, especially in relation to Palestinians, remains extremely low. While Saudi Arabia and the UAE remain close allies of the U.S., they hesitate to pursue agreements with Israel out of fear of domestic or regional backlash. Turkey has also shown hesitation; previously neutral toward Israeli policy, it has now shifted in response to Israel’s actions in Syria and Gaza to a more defensive stance, closing its airspace, suspending trade, and increasing its military capabilities.

As confidence in the United States deteriorates, countries in the region are looking beyond Washington for new security partnerships and investments. Saudi Arabia has expanded cooperation with China on missiles and drones, partnered with Pakistan for defense infrastructure, and localized production of key weapons systems, raising questions about the necessity of its reliance on the U.S. Similarly, the UAE has purchased European fighter jets and developed missile defense systems with South Korea, Qatar and Kuwait are embedding themselves in European security networks, and Turkey unveiled a “Steel Dome” air defense system comparable to Israel’s Iron Dome. Thus, Israel’s militaristic strategy has not deterred regional escalation, but fueled it, encouraging states to strengthen their own military capabilities in case of an Israeli attack. It also reduces U.S. influence in the region, as states withdraw from U.S. security guarantees and turn to other partners.

Washington must recognize that Israel’s military aggression, as opposed to Iran’s nuclear program and proxies alone, contributes to regional instability and can disrupt U.S. interests in the Middle East. Continued unconditional support for Israel’s military actions risks alienating key U.S. allies like the Gulf states, pushing countries in the region toward partnerships with other countries as their confidence in the U.S. wanes. Addressing the persecution of Palestinians, ensuring the trust of regional allies, and prioritizing de-escalation are critical steps to preserve U.S. credibility and influence as a world leader.