6 Prof. Jonathan Rynhold emphasizes that understanding President Donald Trump’s overarching approach to foreign policy is critical for Israeli decision-makers confronting Iran. While Trump’s first term was marked by consistent and unprecedented support for Israel, his second-term record has proved more mixed. He strongly backed Israeli strikes against Iran’s nuclear program, yet excluded Israel from several significant diplomatic initiatives, including the ceasefire with the Houthis, Turkish involvement in Syria, and hostage negotiations in Gaza. Rynhold interprets these inconsistencies through the lens of Trump’s “belligerent isolationism”, a blend of anti-interventionism and a readiness to use overwhelming force when US lives or territory are directly threatened. Trump’s stance on “zero enrichment” aligns with Israel’s nuclear red lines, but his position on Iran’s conventional missile capabilities remains ambiguous. This raises the risk of a US-Iran agreement that satisfies Israel’s minimal nuclear requirements but neglects its broader security concerns, which would constrain Israel’s freedom of action against the missile threat. CDR. David A. Levy, USN (ret.) argues that Israel’s 2021 reassignment fromUSEuropeanCommand to US Central Command (USCENTCOM) represented a pivotal strategic shift. This realignment reflected evolving geopolitical realities and deepening security cooperation between Israel and moderate Arab states in the wake of the Abraham Accords. It enabled greater military integration, joint exercises, intelligence sharing, and coordinated missile defense with regional partners and US forces, substantially enhancing collective security against Iran and its proxies. The value of this integration was demonstrated during the large-scale Iranian missile and drone attacks of 2024, when multinational defense systems operated seamlessly under USCENTCOM’s unified command. Building on this foundation, Operations Rising Lion and Midnight Hammer showcased a sophisticated multi-domain campaign integrating air, naval, cyber, and special operations that inflicted crippling damage on Iran’s fortified nuclear infrastructure. These coordinated strikes not only set back Tehran’s nuclear program but also opened a diplomatic window that Washington and Jerusalem are now leveraging to expand regional normalization and establish a durable multilateral security architecture with Israel as a central pillar of deterrence and stability. Key Takeaways of the Israel-US Approach • Thewar should be understood as part of Israel’s longstanding campaign to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear breakout status. The resort to major military force reflected disturbing Iranian advances in nuclear and missile capabilities, the prior dismantling of Iran’s regional “ring of fire,” and Israel’s deepening strategic partnership with the United States. • Israel-US military operations were a brilliant tactical and operational success, featuring sophisticated multi-domain integration; leadership decapitation; elimination of critical technical expertise; kinetic covert operations; adoption of the “offensive defense” doctrine; and seamless multinational missile defense coordination. • Strategically, the war underscored Israel’s limitations: while highly capable, it cannot unilaterally shape the regional order. American political and military coordination was indispensable in securing favorable terms for the war’s termination. • US conduct reflected Trump’s “belligerent isolationism”: reluctance to engage in open-ended interventions combined with a readiness to apply overwhelming force to protect American lives and territory. While aligned on “zero enrichment”, US-Israeli views may diverge on Iran’s missile threat. • Israel, together with the United States, must continuetoadapt, innovate, andinstitutionalize lessons learned from the campaign’s strengths and limitations to prepare for future regional hostilities and to turn tactical success into a sustainable strategic method. PART II: OTHER PLAYERS’ REACTIONS TO THE WAR Dr. Elai Rettig examines the reaction of the global oil markets, noting their remarkable stability during the 12-day Israel-Iran War despite the strategic importance of the Arab Gulf region to global oil supply and Iran’s repeated threats to block the Strait of Hormuz. This calm reflected three key trends: 1. A structural oversupply of oil driven by increased production from non-OPEC countries and the accelerating shift toward renewable energy technologies, particularly the growing adoption of electric vehicles in East Asia. 2. Theemergenceofalternativeoverlandtransport corridors to bypass maritime chokepoints, such as those envisioned in projects like the IndiaMiddle East-Europe Economic Corridor (IMEC).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU2MA==