TEL AVIV — Ongoing debate over potential U.S. military action against Iran’s nuclear program underscores a key reality in international policy: any American strike would serve core U.S. strategic interests, not necessarily those of Israel, despite their close alliance. Analysis of recent events, especially Washington’s cautious response to Iranian-backed Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, reinforces this assessment and shapes Israeli calculations on national security.
U.S. Interests and the Iranian Challenge
While Israel regards Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons as an existential threat, American policy is defined by broader concerns about global stability, regional power balances, and the protection of U.S. assets and commercial interests. Despite ongoing cooperation on intelligence and defense, Washington’s willingness to use force against Iran is primarily driven by the need to safeguard its own strategic priorities, particularly nonproliferation, maritime navigation, and the safety of American citizens and allies.
The question of whether a U.S. president—past, current, or future—would order strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities is rooted in this calculation. Former President Donald Trump, for example, adopted an America First approach, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord, pursuing sanctions, and even authorizing high-profile targeted strikes such as the killing of IRGC Quds Force commander Qassem Soleimani, but only when U.S. interests or personnel were directly threatened.
Distinct National Red Lines
Israel’s own security doctrine is uncompromising: it cannot allow Iran to achieve nuclear weapons capability under any circumstances. This principle has informed years of Israeli investment in military readiness, cyber capabilities, regional alliances, and intelligence operations—all aimed at ensuring the ability to act unilaterally if circumstances require. For Israel, reliance on even the closest ally is never absolute when facing existential dangers.
This doctrine has been crystallized by the experience of Israel’s Iron Swords War, triggered by the October 7, 2023 massacre—the deadliest act of antisemitic terror since the Holocaust—perpetrated by Iranian-backed Hamas terrorists. The ongoing conflict has put a spotlight on the practical divides between the two allies, particularly regarding when and why each country is willing to use force.
The Houthi Factor: Limits of U.S. Engagement
Incidents in the Red Sea region have offered a pertinent example. The Houthis, an Iranian-backed terror group based in Yemen, have launched repeated drone and missile attacks on international and regional shipping targets, some with links to Israel. The United States, while leading multinational naval efforts to protect shipping lanes vital to the world economy, has consistently stopped short of directly targeting Houthi leadership or their Iranian sponsors.
For Israeli defense officials, this measured American approach serves as further evidence that U.S. intervention is principally reserved for scenarios where its interests or international economic stability are directly threatened. Aggression specifically against Israel—even by Iranian proxies—does not always yield a robust American military response.
Past as Prologue: Independent Israeli Action
This understanding has historic roots. From the 1981 strike on the Iraqi reactor at Osirak to the 2007 bombing of the Syrian reactor at Deir ez-Zor, Israeli leaders have not hesitated to launch preventative operations, even without—or in spite of—American approval, when faced with imminent threats. In both cases, U.S. policymakers ultimately recognized the necessity of these actions in hindsight, but Israeli leaders understood at the moment that national security could not be entrusted to foreign decision-makers.
Geopolitical Landscape: The Iranian Axis
Iran’s strategy of destabilization through local proxies—including Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the Houthis in Yemen—ensures that Israel remains on constant alert. These groups benefit from Iranian financial, technological, and military support and are central to Tehran’s campaign of regional influence and terror. America’s prioritization of its own interests, as shown in regional responses, means Israel must always prepare for unilateral action.
Strategic Partnership, Separate Calculations
While U.S.-Israeli coordination on security, technology, and intelligence is deep and ongoing, their different red lines are clear. The United States evaluates threats in the context of its global and national needs, even as it provides vital support for Israeli defense and celebrates the Abraham Accords as a milestone of regional diplomacy. Israel, on the other hand, measures events in existential terms, determined never to delegate its fate.
Conclusion: Lessons for Policy and Defense
Recent history, especially America’s approach to the Iranian-backed Houthi threat and the enduring reality of terror emanating from Iranian proxies, highlights the enduring divergence between allies’ strategies. For Israel, this means sustained investment in its own military capabilities, independent planning, and readiness to act whenever intelligence and national imperatives demand.
As Iran’s nuclear program advances and its proxy networks remain active, Israeli leaders reiterate a central lesson: while partnership with the United States is essential, the final responsibility for national survival always rests at home. The pattern of American foreign policy makes clear that Israel must—and will—rely first and foremost on its own resolve and strength in the face of existential threats.
