U.S. President Donald Trump’s move to seek a basis for a new agreement with Iran—and the growing concerns in Israel over this process—might at first glance be interpreted in terms of Iran’s nuclear program or the balance of power in the Middle East. However, recent developments in U.S.-Iran relations and the reactions emerging from Israel point to a deeper transformation. Indeed, while figures close to Trump are attempting to reassure Israeli circles concerned about a potential reconciliation process with Iran, doubts regarding the future of U.S. support are becoming increasingly visible in the Israeli public sphere.[i]
This situation highlights the structural tension between the evolving definition of the U.S. role in the Middle East and the security identity that Israel has built over many years. When states’ foreign policies are analyzed through the prism of the roles they assign themselves and how other actors perceive those roles, the central issue in today’s debate is not Iran, but rather how the U.S. defines itself and its allies, and how its allies perceive that definition.
Since the end of the Cold War, Israel has positioned itself as Washington’s closest strategic partner in the Middle East, a cornerstone of the regional security architecture, and a counterweight to Iran. This role is not merely Israel’s own self-definition; it has also been widely accepted and supported by the United States for many years. However, roles that are so interdependent within the system cannot be sustained unilaterally. The continuation of a role that a state ascribes to itself depends on other actors continuing to recognize that role.[ii] Precisely for this reason, the Trump administration’s search for common ground with Iran is viewed not only as a shift in diplomatic preference from Israel’s perspective but also as a mechanism that creates a role conflict.
Indeed, while Israel views itself as an indispensable strategic partner of the U.S., Washington is increasingly projecting the image of an actor that operates based on cost-benefit analyses and is reassessing its regional engagements. This situation creates a mismatch between the role of “regional security actor enjoying unconditional U.S. support”—a role Israel has embraced for many years—and the Trump administration’s more transactional approach to foreign policy. In other words, Israel’s security concerns stem not so much from Iran’s growing strength as from the changing definition of the U.S. role.
When viewed through the lens of the ontological security approach, however, it must be noted that states do not merely seek to protect themselves from physical threats, but also strive to safeguard the continuity of their identities and their place within the international system. States’ perceptions of security are often influenced not only by their military capabilities but also by how they define themselves and the predictability of their relationships with surrounding actors.[iii] In this context, Israel’s current concern stems not so much from Iran’s military capabilities as from the fact that U.S.-Israel relations are no longer as predictable as they once were. In other words, the Tel Aviv administration is grappling not so much with the consequences of an agreement with Iran as with the possibility that the U.S. no longer views it in the same way.
Trump’s approach, however, is shaped by a logic that differs from traditional American foreign policy reflexes. For Trump, foreign policy is largely interpreted not through the lens of ideological commitments or historical alliance loyalties, but through a balance of costs and benefits. For this reason, the ongoing engagement with Iran is viewed not merely as an effort to limit its nuclear program, but also as a means to reduce the military burden in the Middle East, bring regional tensions under control, and redirect American resources toward areas deemed more prioritized.[iv]
This situation has become particularly significant in light of the shift in the United States’ global strategic priorities. In recent years, the characterization of China as a “systemic rival” in Washington’s foreign policy documents and strategic assessments has led American decision-makers to rethink their long-standing and costly engagements in the Middle East. In this context, reaching a certain level of reconciliation with Iran can be viewed not only as a pursuit of regional stability but also as part of a strategy to shift U.S. attention and resources toward the Indo-Pacific.
However, interpreting the Iran issue solely through the lens of great power competition would be incomplete. This is because behind Washington’s pursuit of reconciliation with Tehran lies a broader economic dimension that can be described as “interconnectivity security.” Crises in the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait in recent years have demonstrated just how fragile global energy and trade flows are. In particular, attacks in the Red Sea and pressures on maritime shipping have imposed significant costs on global supply chains.[v] For this reason, from the U.S. perspective, Iran is no longer a threat to be contained but has become an actor that must be managed to ensure the sustainability of global economic flows.
This situation highlights the divergence between Israel’s security priorities and the United States’ global priorities. While limiting Iran’s regional influence remains a primary objective for Tel Aviv, for Washington, energy security, the freedom of maritime trade routes, reducing global inflationary pressures, and safeguarding strategic resources against China may take precedence. Consequently, the divergence between the two countries stems from differing threat perceptions and strategic priorities.
In fact, this development is not unique to Israel. In the current international system, where multipolarity is becoming increasingly visible, the major powers’ approach toward their allies is also changing. Whereas security guarantees used to be based on more enduring and predictable relationships, today alliance relationships are increasingly becoming a matter of negotiation. As seen in the Iran crisis, from Israel’s perspective, the U.S. is no longer a “security guarantor” but has become an “unreliable actor” driven by certain strategic calculations. This is because the U.S.’s approach toward its allies has entered a process of structural transformation alongside the “America First” doctrine, and it appears that Israel is no exception to this process.
Ultimately, Trump’s pursuit of a compromise with Iran signifies much more than just a security crisis for Israel. This development demonstrates that the United States’ traditional role in the Middle East is evolving, and, as a result, allied nations are also being forced to reassess their own identities. Israel’s concern stems not so much from Iran’s growing power as from the fact that Washington no longer defines itself in the same way. Therefore, the current debate is not merely a diplomatic disagreement over the Iran issue; it is part of a broader transformation in which the concepts of alliance, security guarantees, and strategic partnership are being redefined within a changing international system.
[i] Alexander Cornwell ve Benjamin Raab, “Trump allies defend him to Israelis anxious over Iran deal”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/trump-allies-defend-him-israelis-anxious-over-iran-deal-2026-06-22/, (Date Accessed: 22.06.2026).
[ii] Sebastian Harnisch, “Conceptualizing in the Minefield: Role Theory and Foreign Policy Learning”, Foreign Policy Analysis, 8(1), 47–69, 2012, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24909853, ss.52.
[iii] Jennifer Mitzen, “Ontological Security in World Politics: State Identity and the Security Dilemma”, European Journal of International Relations, 12(3): 341–370, 2006, DOI: 10.1177/1354066106067346, ss.346.
[iv] Matt Spetalnick ve Humeyra Pamuk, “Trump veers toward exit in Iran war but risks loom”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-veers-toward-exit-iran-war-risks-loom-2026-06-15/, (Date Accessed: 22.06.2026).
[v] Nidhi Verma, Siyi Liu ve Joyce Lee, “Hormuz reopening to release wave of oil supply, depress prices”, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/hormuz-reopening-release-wave-oil-supply-depress-prices-2026-06-18/, (Date Accessed: 22.06.2026).
