JERUSALEM — Uncertainty in American foreign policy under President Donald Trump has left Israeli leaders facing difficult questions about the future of their security and the broader Middle East order. In recent months, Trump’s statements about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and the possibility of renegotiating the nuclear deal have fluctuated sharply, creating both hope and apprehension among Israeli policymakers and allies across the region.
Since the Trump administration withdrew from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and implemented a maximum pressure campaign against Iran, Israel has largely welcomed the move, viewing the original deal as dangerously deficient in curbing Tehran’s nuclear and regional ambitions. Instead of closure, however, the American policy shift has ushered in an era of unpredictability, as Trump frequently hints at new talks with Iran or suggests that he might support future compromise—only to retract or shift his position days later.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, backed by Minister of Defense Israel Katz and IDF Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Eyal Zamir, has repeatedly stressed that any renewed agreement must confront Tehran’s support for terrorist organizations, its ballistic missile development, and its ongoing efforts to destabilize Israel and its neighbors. Such concerns are heightened as Iranian-backed terror groups—chief among them Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—escalate operations along Israel’s borders, supported logistically and ideologically by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).
The situation reached a new crisis point after the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel, which marked the deadliest antisemitic atrocity since the Holocaust, carried out by Hamas terrorists with direct and indirect support from Tehran. Israeli intelligence assessments suggest that Iranian operatives continue to arm, fund, and advise their proxies in the region, intent on expanding the ‘axis of resistance’ against Israel and Western interests.
Within Israel, Trump’s mercurial style complicates national security planning. Military officials express appreciation for American sanctions that have limited Tehran’s economic resources, yet they also acknowledge the risks posed by day-to-day ambiguity in US policy. As one senior defense analyst observed, “Trump is not predictable—neither a clear ally nor an adversary, leaving Israel to prepare for both scenarios.”
The inconsistency of messaging from Washington also has international ramifications. Diplomatic conversations and media reporting in Arabic, English, and Hebrew swiftly echo and amplify any signs of Israeli concern or recalibration, often heightening anxiety across Middle Eastern capitals. As Israeli officials attempt to clarify their positions to their own public, they face the challenge of influencing—or at least keeping up with—narratives that are quickly disseminated and sometimes distorted throughout the Arabic-speaking world.
In parallel, rising tensions have given new urgency to Israel’s calls for international acknowledgment of the true nature of Iran’s threat and its responsibility for the actions of affiliated terror groups. Israeli authorities underscore the stark moral, legal, and operational differences between its own defensive military operations and the aggressive, civilian-targeted terror campaigns led by the IRGC, Hezbollah, and Hamas. Israel continues to demand the unconditional release of hostages seized by Hamas and insists that no agreement restoring legitimacy to Iran’s nuclear program will be sufficient unless it addresses the underlying infrastructure of terror and regional aggression.
The broader region, including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Jordan, is watching closely. Many of these governments have pursued their own normalization agreements or understandings with Israel, motivated in part by shared concerns over Iranian adventurism. The Abraham Accords, which marked a watershed in Arab-Israeli relations under Trump’s administration, demonstrate the potential for new alliances if—and only if—Washington provides clear and consistent leadership.
Yet, as American and European diplomats float alternative terms for a reinvigorated JCPOA or equivalent framework, Israeli officials grow wary of pressure to accept compromises that may ease international tensions but leave Israel exposed to existential risks. The Israeli security establishment warns that climbing down from its current posture is not an option unless the fundamental threats posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its proxy armies are meaningfully addressed. A forced diplomatic accommodation that circumvents Israel’s security needs could ignite a different kind of conflict—one driven by the necessity of unilateral self-defense.
The volatility of the Trump era has underscored a persistent truth in Israeli strategy: while US backing remains vital, the ultimate responsibility for Israel’s safety rests with the Israeli government and its military. Plans for rapid mobilization, home-front preparedness, and cross-border responses are now routine, even as officials hope that American support will remain firm when tested.
As the situation continues to evolve, both adversaries and allies try to read the intentions of a US president who prides himself on being impenetrable. For Tehran, this serves as a deterrent, but for Jerusalem, it translates into an urgent need for independent readiness. The fate of negotiations, whether direct or indirect, between the US and Iran remains uncertain, and all sides are preparing for the possibility that, regardless of diplomatic developments, Israel may be left to act alone against a gathering storm.
In conclusion, President Trump’s approach has redefined the parameters of American involvement in the Middle East. While it has exposed the flaws in prior diplomatic arrangements and focused new attention on Iranian-backed terror, it has also cast a shadow of unpredictability over Israel’s security future. Amidst ongoing hostilities, credible threats, and shifting alliances, Israel’s leaders are working to ensure that the defense of their population and national sovereignty is never dependent on rhetoric alone, but founded on robust and decisive action.
