Israel has every right to defend itself. But in the new American environment, preserving US political, moral, and emotional support must be treated as a national security priority.
The question before Israel is not whether it is entitled to defend itself. It does. The question is whether Israel can defend itself in a way that preserves the American political coalition, diplomatic trust, and emotional admiration that have long been central to its national security.
This distinction matters. Iran remains dangerous. Its nuclear ambitions, missile capabilities, proxy networks, and ideological hostility cannot be wished away by a memorandum of understanding. But American power has already been used, American political capital has already been spent, and President Donald Trump has taken risks that no Israeli leader should dismiss. The task now is not to trust Tehran. It is to help Washington test Tehran without weakening the American hand.
Israel’s security challenge is existential
Israel has every reason to be vigilant. After October 7, no serious person can ask Israelis to be naïve about Hamas, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, the Houthis, or the Iranian regime that arms, finances, and encourages them. Israel is not fighting because it seeks confrontation. It is fighting because it lives under threats that most democracies would not tolerate for a single day.
But precisely because Israel’s security challenge is existential, it must think not only in terms of military operations but also in terms of strategic capital. One part of that capital is American power. Another is American trust. A third, often underestimated, is the emotional admiration that millions of Americans—Jewish and non-Jewish alike—have felt for Israel for generations.
That admiration was never only about tanks, aircraft, intelligence cooperation, or votes at the United Nations. Americans loved Israel because they saw in it a story of resilience. They admired a small country that turned vulnerability into courage, desert into agriculture, trauma into statehood, and danger into innovation. They admired Israeli democracy, even when it was noisy, divided, and imperfect. They admired the children of Israel who became soldiers, scientists, doctors, entrepreneurs, engineers, researchers, and builders of one of the world's most extraordinary high-tech economies.
This emotional capital is not decorative. It is a national-security asset. It does not belong to any one party, coalition, or prime minister. It belongs to the Israeli people and to Israel’s future. It must be protected, whatever the government's political color in Jerusalem.
This situation is why the current US-Iran memorandum of understanding must be approached with discipline. It may be fragile. It may require the strictest verification and the clearest red lines. But Israel should not mistake an American diplomatic opening for American weakness. Nor should it appear to undermine the president who has just spent historic political capital confronting Iran.
Trump did not abandon Israel
President Trump did not abandon Israel. He went further than previous presidents in using American power against Iran. He did so while facing criticism from political opponents and unease among parts of his America First base, where many voters are skeptical of foreign wars and Middle Eastern entanglements. Israel should recognize the scale of that decision.
The MOU is not an act of trust in Tehran. Washington is not naïve. American intelligence agencies are not blind. The State Department is aware of the Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s proxy networks, and the regime’s record of deception. The memorandum should be understood for what it is: a test. It gives what remains of the Iranian regime a chance to step back from war under pressure, scrutiny, and conditions.
Israel has every right to insist on those conditions. It should demand full accounting of enriched uranium, intrusive verification, limits on missiles and drones, enforcement against proxy rearmament, and clear consequences if Iran cheats. It should insist that Lebanon become a model of stability, that Hezbollah be held accountable, and that Iran be prevented from transforming a pause in fighting into a recovery strategy.
But Israel should make these demands in close coordination with Washington, not through public confrontation that weakens the very people trying to help it. There is an old political principle: help me to help you. Israel should apply it now.
Israel still has serious friends in America. President Trump has acted with unusual force. Jared Kushner helped shape a new regional imagination through the Abraham Accords, changing how important Arab countries understood Israel and its place in the Middle East. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has spoken clearly about Israel’s right to protect itself. American defense and intelligence leaders have made clear that deterrence and consequences remain part of the equation. And this friendship is not limited to Republicans. There remain serious Democrats who believe Iran must never acquire nuclear weapons, that Israel is entitled to defend itself, and that the US-Israel alliance remains a pillar of American strategy.
But even Israel’s best friends cannot defend what Israel makes difficult to explain. In today’s America, friendship must be renewed, not assumed.
The American environment is changing. Support for Israel remains strong in important circles, especially among older Republicans, traditional conservatives, many American Jews, and older evangelical Christians. But the old consensus is eroding. Younger Americans, many Democrats, independents, younger Republicans, parts of the MAGA movement, and younger evangelicals increasingly look at Israel through a more critical lens.
The reasons are not mysterious. Younger Americans did not grow up with the same memory of Israel’s birth, the Holocaust, the Six-Day War, or the image of Israel as a small democracy struggling for survival against larger enemies. Many encounter the conflict first through social media, where images of civilian suffering often arrive without historical context, without maps, and without an understanding of Iran’s proxy strategy.
Younger conservatives, including parts of the MAGA movement, are also more skeptical of foreign wars, foreign aid, and open-ended commitments in the Middle East. Younger evangelicals, meanwhile, are less attached to the older Christian Zionist consensus and more likely to view foreign policy through humanitarian, anti-war, or social-justice language. Israel cannot ignore this shift or dismiss it as a passing mood.
This does not mean the US-Israel alliance is collapsing. It means the alliance is entering a more demanding phase. Israel can no longer rely solely on memory, history, religion, or traditional strategic arguments. It must speak with greater intelligence to a younger America that consumes information through social media, distrusts foreign wars, reacts strongly to civilian suffering, and often does not understand the existential nature of Israel’s security dilemma.
The answer is not weakness. Israel must remain strong. But strength without explanation can become isolation. Deterrence without diplomacy can become exhaustion.
Israel’s next phase must therefore combine military courage with diplomatic wisdom. It must defend its citizens while preserving the alliance that helps sustain that defense. It must distrust Iran without weakening Washington.
The greatest strategic mistake Israel could make would be to treat American friendship as a permanent inheritance. It is not. It is a living capital — moral, political, emotional, military, and diplomatic — that must be protected every day.
Israel has every right to be strong. But in this new American environment, strength alone will not be enough. Israel must also be wise, grateful, persuasive, and disciplined.
Ahmed Charai is the publisher of the Jerusalem Strategic Tribune and serves on the boards of directors of the Atlantic Council, the International Crisis Group, the Foreign Policy Research Institute, the Center for the National Interest, and The Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security.