Saturday night’s US military strike in Iran, carried out under the Trump administration in direct response to Iranian escalation, constitutes more than a tactical military operation. It signals a deeper ideological shift: a de facto resolution in one of the most enduring debates in American political thought – the role of the United States in the international arena.
Since returning to office, the Trump administration has advanced a doctrine of “America First,” characterized by skepticism toward prolonged military engagements and an emphasis on national sovereignty. This stance aligned with growing public fatigue over foreign entanglements. However, amid rising tensions in the Middle East and Iran’s regional assertiveness, a partial retreat from isolationism has emerged – first through intelligence and diplomatic coordination with Israel, and later through unequivocal threats of force.
The US strike, while clear and narrowly targeted with defined military objectives, did not occur in a vacuum. It reflects a cautious yet systematic recalibration of American strategic responsibility in the region and a deliberate effort to send a deterrent message – to Tehran, but also to Beijing and Moscow, watching closely from afar.
Between Wilsonianism and Isolationism
This ideological tension between global engagement and strategic restraint has been embedded in US foreign policy since its inception. On one hand, Wilsonian ideals of America’s 28th president Woodrow Wilson (1913-21) have championed moral leadership, international responsibility, and the defense of a liberal world order. On the other hand, a deep-rooted isolationist tradition – dating back to George Washington’s farewell address – has emphasized national sovereignty and non-intervention.
The recent strike has reignited this debate in US political discourse. Within the conservative camp, particularly among proponents of the MAGA movement, internal divisions have become evident.
Tucker Carlson, a leading voice of right-wing populism, warned against a “regional war that would betray Trump’s base.” Steve Bannon, one of the intellectual architects of the “America First” agenda, added: “We can’t do this again. It’ll tear the country apart.” These statements reflect a deep ideological fissure – between those who support the use of force and those who view it as a betrayal of strategic autonomy.
Yet the response may suggest the emergence of a more pragmatic, context-dependent foreign policy: one that evaluates crises based on strategic weight, domestic resonance, and the likelihood of achieving clear outcomes. The Iran strike – absent a ground invasion or open-ended commitment – offers a case in point.
Implications for Israel
For Israel, the strike represents an important signal – both militarily and perceptually. After a protracted period of Iranian provocations and proxy activity, Washington has sent an unambiguous message of support. This action, however, does not necessarily indicate a broader return to American global policing. It may well remain an exception – underscoring the risks of over-reliance on shifting American priorities. A recalibrated Israeli strategy must include diversified channels of diplomacy and responsible strategic autonomy.
What should Israel do next?
- Strengthen operational capacity and strategic autonomy: Despite American support, Israel should reinforce its ability to act independently – whether through direct military means or through credible deterrence. The strike highlights the value of alliance but also its limitations. Domestic capacity is essential for preserving freedom of action.
- Multichannel diplomacy in Washington and beyond: Sustaining bipartisan support by engaging not only with the administration and Congress but also with the media and broader civil society. This requires adapting messaging to resonate with diverse audiences – particularly younger voters across the political spectrum.
- Frame the Iranian threat in normative terms: Iran’s conduct should be framed not solely as a security challenge but as a normative one – posing threats to human rights, minority protections, gender equality, and LGBTQ communities. Such framing may broaden international support and align the issue with liberal democratic values.
- Continued coordination with the US: With strategic caution, Israel should leverage current momentum, but avoid treating it as a long-term strategic constant and overly relying on it.
- Long-term strategic planning: Shifts in American foreign policy require structured monitoring, proactive scenario development, and investment in shared interests beyond security – such as technological and innovation partnerships.
“No president since Truman in 1945”
This phrase, originally cited by US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee in his prophetic message to Trump, draws an intentional line between President Truman – the first world leader to recognize the State of Israel in 1948 – and Trump’s own role at this pivotal moment. The parallel is intended to evoke a sense of divine purpose and historic continuity, situating recent events within a broader narrative of American-Israeli alliance.
While the strike does not resolve the Iranian crisis, it does reflect a departure from rhetorical isolationism and a return – however limited – to assertive US engagement. Yet caution is essential. This may be a singular response to a unique convergence of political timing, domestic pressure, and imminent regional escalation.
Accordingly, Israel must respond with strategic clarity – recognizing the opportunity, leveraging the alliance, and developing its own resilient strategic foundation for the challenges ahead.
The writer, head of the Institute for Applied Research in Responsible AI at HIT and director of the Israel–US Strategic Technologies Project at INSS. She formerly served as head of the Foreign Policy Division at Israel’s National Security Council.