The United States and Iran’s pursuit of a new agreement on the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz and the lifting of the naval blockade targeting Iranian ports, alongside growing concerns in Israel during this process, may signal a deeper transformation in US-Israel alliance relations. Indeed, while figures close to Trump have sought to reassure Israeli circles concerned about a possible process of rapprochement with Iran, questions regarding the future of US support have also become increasingly visible within Israeli public opinion.[i]
This situation reveals a structural tension between the transformation in the way the United States defines its role in the Middle East and the security identity upon which Israel has built itself for decades. When states’ foreign policies are examined through the roles they assign to themselves and the ways in which other actors recognize these roles, the issue at the center of the current debate is not Iran, but rather how the United States defines itself and its allies, and how its allies perceive this recognition.
Since the post-Cold War period, Israel has positioned itself as Washington’s closest strategic partner in the Middle East, a key component of the regional security architecture, and a balancing actor against Iran. This role is not merely a product of Israel’s own self-definition; for many years, it has also been broadly recognized and supported by the United States. However, roles that are so deeply interconnected within a system cannot be sustained unilaterally. The continuation of a role attributed by one state to itself depends on other actors continuing to recognize that role.[ii] It is precisely for this reason that the Trump administration’s search for a basis for rapprochement with Iran can be viewed, from Israel’s perspective, not only as a shift in diplomatic preference but also as a mechanism generating role conflict.
While Israel sees itself as an indispensable strategic partner of the United States, Washington increasingly appears to be acting on the basis of cost-benefit calculations and reassessing its regional engagements. This creates an incongruity between Israel’s long-standing role as a “regional security actor backed by unconditional US support” and the Trump administration’s adoption of a “more transactional approach to foreign policy.” In other words, Israel’s security concerns stem less from the strengthening of Iran than from the changing definition of the US role.
Viewed through the lens of ontological security, it is necessary to recognize that states seek not only protection from physical threats but also the continuity of their identities and their place within the international system. States’ perceptions of security are often shaped not simply by their military capabilities, but also by how they define themselves and by how predictable their relationships with surrounding actors are. From this perspective, Israel’s current anxiety stems less from Iran’s military capabilities than from the fact that the US-Israel relationship is no longer as predictable as it once was.[iii] In other words, the government in Tel Aviv is confronting not so much the consequences of a potential agreement with Iran as the possibility that the United States may no longer perceive Israel in the same way as it did in the past.
Trump’s approach, meanwhile, is shaped by a logic that differs from traditional American foreign policy reflexes. For Trump, foreign policy is understood largely not through ideological commitments or historical alliance loyalties, but through a balance of costs and benefits. Therefore, contacts with Iran should not be viewed solely as an effort to constrain its nuclear program. From Washington’s perspective, the issue is also about reducing the military burden in the Middle East, containing regional tensions, and redirecting American resources toward areas considered more strategically important.[iv]
This becomes particularly significant in light of the transformation in US global strategic priorities. In recent years, the identification of China as a systemic rival in Washington’s foreign policy documents and strategic assessments has encouraged American decision-makers to reconsider prolonged and costly engagements in the Middle East. In this context, achieving a certain degree of accommodation with Iran can be viewed not only as an effort to promote regional stability, but also as part of a strategy to shift US attention and resources toward the Indo-Pacific.
However, it would be incomplete to interpret the Iran issue solely through the lens of great-power competition. Washington’s pursuit of accommodation with Tehran also has a broader economic dimension that can be described as connectivity security. The crises experienced in recent years around the Strait of Hormuz and the Bab el-Mandeb have demonstrated the vulnerability of global energy and trade flows. In particular, attacks in the Red Sea and pressure on maritime shipping have generated significant costs for global supply chains.[v] Therefore, from the US perspective, Iran is increasingly becoming not a threat that must be contained, but an actor that must be managed in terms of the sustainability of global economic flows.
This situation makes the divergence between Israel’s security priorities and US global priorities more visible. While limiting Iran’s regional influence remains a fundamental objective for Tel Aviv, energy security, the openness of maritime trade routes, reducing global inflationary pressures, and preserving strategic resources for competition with China may have become more important priorities for Washington. Therefore, the divergence between the two countries should not be characterized merely as a difference in methods. Rather, it reflects a divergence in 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 approach of great powers toward their allies is also undergoing transformation. Whereas security guarantees in the past were based on more enduring and predictable relationships, alliance relations are increasingly becoming matters for negotiation. As seen in the cases of Ukraine, Taiwan, and the Gulf states, US support is increasingly taking the form not of a fixed security mechanism but of an instrument reassessed in accordance with particular strategic calculations. When the Israeli case is considered alongside these examples, it can be argued that the US approach toward its allies is undergoing a structural transformation and is being sustained insofar as it remains compatible with global strategic priorities.
In conclusion, Trump’s pursuit of accommodation with Iran represents much more than a security crisis for Israel. It demonstrates that the traditional US definition of its role in the Middle East is undergoing transformation and that, as a consequence, allied states are also being compelled to reassess their own identities. Israel’s anxiety stems less from the strengthening of Iran than from the fact that Washington no longer defines Israel in the same way. Therefore, the debate taking place today 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] “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] “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).
