U.S. Influence on Israeli Security Decisions: Trump Sets the Agenda
Presidential Control Over Israeli Policy
There is a growing recognition that U.S. President Donald Trump not only exerts substantial control over the national security agenda of Israel but also directly dictates the strategic moves that the Jerusalem government should take on critical security and diplomatic issues. This oversight is particularly evident as such decisions increasingly create internal political challenges for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, potentially jeopardizing the stability of his government. The full cabinet has largely been excluded from meaningful discussions on pivotal matters, such as Iran and the progression to the next phase of Trump’s plan for Gaza.
The Israeli Public’s Concerns Amid Uncertainty
start of the most pressing concerns among the Israeli public centers on the potential outcomes of a U.S. strike on Iran. Speculation surrounds what might happen if Iran were to launch a preemptive attack to retaliate against perceived American aggression before a military operation unfolds against the Tehran regime. In blunt terms, there is anxiety over the possibility of once again hearing sirens in the dead of night and facing the threat of rocket attacks.
As of now, there appear to be no clear answers to these questions. This uncertainty extends to Trump himself, who is known for making last-minute decisions. Observations made during a recent speech by U.S. Vstart President Mike Pence illustrate that both the Pentagon and U.S. Central Command (Centcom) remain on standby, prepared to launch a significant naval and air strike against Iran upon receiving orders. Concurrently, they are bolstering defenses for American soldiers, bases, and interests in the Middle East, including Israel.
Military Preparations and Strategic Discussions
Discussions related to military preparations focused on joint defense against potential Iranian retaliation were prominent during talks between Centcom Commander General Eric C. Smith and Israeli Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi. It is reasonable to suggest that they coordinated on how the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) could provide intelligence and support for a possible American offensive and how the Israeli Air Force might participate in an attack should Israel be targeted.
Given the absence of a definitive presidential decision, these military leaders engaged in strategic deliberations, typically referred to in the IDF as “contingency discussions,” with details to be finalized in due course. It has also been reported that Trump is pushing for the Pentagon and Centcom to devise plans that would ensure a “clear resolution,” though his precise intention behind the term remains nebulous.
Critical Questions Facing U.S. Military Strategy
The dilemmas surrounding Trump’s potential military strike against Iran hinge on five essential questions:
- Can a targeted and time-limited aerial bombardment lead to the regime’s collapse or significant weakening?
- Are there factions within Iran or among the Iranian populace capable of capitalizing on regime weaknesses to drive a conclusive overthrow or force policy changes internally and externally?
- Is a sustained military threat necessary to compel the Iranian leadership to negotiate on U.S. demands regarding sanctions relief and military threats?
- If airstrikes cannot ensure regime collapse, should the accumulating U.S. military presence in the Middle East be used to inflict significant damage on Iran’s military infrastructure?
- Do the U.S. and its allies possess actionable intelligence and operational capability to achieve either regime change or significant military degradation without incurring excessive costs?
The Potential Costs of Military Action
It is critical to consider what the potential human and material costs would be for the U.S. and its allies if Trump were to initiate military action against Iran. Trump previously lost an opportunity for surprise when he chose not to strike two weeks ago, causing a loss of the element of surprise that could hinder deep, significant changes in Iran, such as targeting its leadership.
Trump has demonstrated a cautious approach, weighing the benefits against potential casualties and the costs of a prolonged military engagement. This was evident when U.S. military aircraft prepared for takeoff last week but were subsequently ordered back. He is unlikely to risk American lives or engage in a costly long-term operation without clear advantages.
Iran’s Response and Wider Implications
Another significant concern pertains to whether Iran would retaliate against the U.S. for any military action. While there is insufficient incentive for Iran to attack Israel-given the Israeli Air Force’s substantial capabilities and the enhanced defense arrangements with Centcom-there remains a calculated risk that they may target American interests in the region.
Moving Toward Phase Two in Gaza
On another front, the Trump administration is directing Israel on strategic moves regarding Gaza, specifically in advancing the second phase of a 20-point peace initiative. The major hurdle remains disarming Hamas and ensuring the demilitarization of Gaza. Jared Kushner laid out principles for this disarmament during a recent talk, but no operational body is currently positistartd to enforce these changes effectively.
The opening of the Rafah border crossing is a critical issue, with Israel using it as leverage to secure the return of missing soldier Ron Gaiuli. The Israeli government has suggested that the crossing will open once operations are finalized in accordance with U.S. agreements.
In conclusion, the landscape of Israel’s security policy is increasingly shaped by external pressures from the U.S. administration, particularly as it navigates complex geopolitical dilemmas in the region. As these developments continue to unfold, the implications for both Israeli policy and regional stability remain significant.