The Trump administration’s 2025 National Security Strategy represents a fundamental shift in how the United States approaches the Middle East, with significant implications for Israel that go far beyond the document’s sparse mentions of the country.
While Israeli officials and media have expressed concern about being mentioned only six times in the document, the real story lies not in what the strategy says about Israel, but in the broader reorientation of American priorities it signals.
The strategy explicitly states that America wants to avoid the “forever wars” that have characterized its Middle East engagement while maintaining key interests including ensuring Israel’s security. This represents a careful balancing act: maintaining commitments while fundamentally redefining the region’s place in American strategic thinking.
The document declares that the Middle East will no longer dominate American foreign policy in day-to-day planning and execution, framing this shift as positive because the region is supposedly less of a constant threat than it once was. For Israel, this is a double-edged sword.
While Washington continues to affirm its commitment to Israeli security as a core interest, the reduced American footprint means Israel may need to become more self-reliant in managing regional threats.
‘Operation Midnight Hammer’ factor
The strategy claims that Iran has been significantly weakened by both Israeli military actions since October 7, 2023, and a US operation called “Operation Midnight Hammer” in June 2025 that supposedly degraded Iran’s nuclear program.
This assertion, while unverified by independent sources, provides the strategic rationale for reduced American military presence in the region. From Israel’s perspective, if accurate, this represents a major shift in the Iranian threat landscape that could reshape regional dynamics.
However, this optimistic assessment may not align with ground realities. Despite claims of regional stability, violence continues across multiple fronts, with ongoing Israeli operations in Gaza, escalating tensions in the West Bank, continued strikes in Lebanon, and expanded military operations in Syria.
The disconnect between the strategy’s rosy outlook and on-the-ground conditions suggests either overly optimistic assessments or a deliberate effort to justify strategic disengagement.
Transactional realism and the Abraham Accords
The strategy’s approach to the Middle East is characterized by what it calls “transactional realism” and “flexible realism.” This means accepting Middle Eastern countries and their leaders as they are, without imposing democratic reforms or social change, while pursuing areas of mutual interest. For Israel, this has both positive and negative dimensions.
On the positive side, expanding the Abraham Accords remains an explicit priority, with normalization between Israel and Saudi Arabia apparently high on the agenda. A proposed “Core 5” forum including the US, China, Russia, India, and Japan would focus initially on Middle East security, specifically on normalizing relations between Israel and Saudi Arabia. This suggests the administration sees Israeli-Arab normalization as central to its regional strategy.
On the negative side, the transactional approach means American support may become more conditional and directly tied to demonstrable benefits for US interests. Israeli experts note that the government may need to shift away from the economic aid model toward emphasizing mutual military cooperation and demonstrating how Israel serves US interests to appeal to the MAGA base.
Burden-sharing imperative
A core theme running throughout the strategy is burden-sharing with allies. While focused primarily on NATO, this principle extends to all American partnerships. The strategy emphasizes that wealthy, sophisticated nations must assume primary responsibility for their regions and contribute far more to collective defense.
For Israel, this likely means expectations of greater self-sufficiency and potentially increased defense spending, even as the country already maintains one of the world’s highest defense budgets as a percentage of GDP.
The strategy also signals expectations that regional partners will step up. It envisions the Middle East as increasingly becoming a source and destination of international investment in industries including nuclear energy, AI and defense technologies. This economic dimension could open new opportunities for Israeli-Arab cooperation while reducing the region’s dependence on direct American involvement.
Intervention limits
Perhaps most significant for Israel is the strategy’s clear predisposition toward non-interventionism.
The document establishes a high bar for what constitutes justified American intervention, rooted in a focused definition of national interest rather than expansive commitments. The administration has made clear it will not welcome new wars between Israel and its adversaries, whether Hamas, Hezbollah, or Iran.
This creates a new constraint on Israeli military planning. If Israeli leaders contemplate major operations—whether a campaign to disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon or large-scale reentry into densely populated areas of Gaza—they cannot assume automatic American support or protection from international consequences.
There is unlikely to be much welcome in Washington for such plans, fundamentally altering the strategic calculus that has governed Israeli decision-making for decades.
The strategy’s harsh criticism of Europe adds another layer of complexity. European officials have reacted strongly to claims that the continent faces “civilizational erasure,” with former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt calling the language reminiscent of Kremlin talking points.
The resulting tension in US-European relations could complicate Israel’s own relationships with European powers and affect EU positions on Israeli-Palestinian issues.
Unspoken tension
Beneath the surface of continued support lies a more complicated reality. Trump’s personal relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu has been strained, with the former president reportedly frustrated that Netanyahu congratulated Biden after the 2020 election and skeptical about whether Netanyahu truly wants a deal with the Palestinians.
This personal dynamic, combined with Trump’s apparent receptiveness to Arab leaders’ perspectives, suggests that Israeli influence in Washington may be less assured than in previous administrations.
Nearly half of Israelis now believe the US has greater influence on their security decisions than their own government, highlighting concerns about sovereignty and dependence. At the same time, with 69% of Israeli weapons coming from the US, Israel has limited options if American priorities diverge significantly from its own.
The 2025 National Security Strategy presents Israel with several strategic imperatives:
Greater Self-Reliance: With reduced American engagement, Israel must enhance its ability to independently manage regional threats while maintaining qualitative military edge without assuming automatic American intervention.
Diplomatic Recalibration: Israel needs to invest more heavily in regional partnerships, particularly through expanding the Abraham Accords, as the US pivots toward an offshore balancing approach.
Economic Reorientation: The shift from aid to investment paradigms means Israel should emphasize technological partnerships, joint ventures in AI and cybersecurity, and integration into regional economic networks.
Strategic Communication: Israeli leaders must more effectively articulate how Israeli actions serve American interests, particularly in countering Iranian influence and maintaining regional stability.
Operational Constraints: Major military operations will face greater scrutiny and potential American opposition, requiring Israel to either build broader international coalitions or accept higher diplomatic costs for unilateral action.
Conclusion
The 2025 National Security Strategy doesn’t abandon Israel—it explicitly maintains Israeli security as a core American interest.
However, it fundamentally redefines the terms of engagement. The US is moving from a posture of deep, day-to-day involvement in Middle Eastern affairs to one of selective engagement driven by narrowly defined national interests.
For Israel, this transition requires adaptation rather than alarm. The country has built formidable military capabilities and cultivated new regional relationships that position it well for an era of reduced American presence.
However, the transition also demands recognition that American support, while continuing, will be more conditional, more transactional, and more explicitly tied to demonstrable benefits for US interests. The era of unconditional commitment, if it ever truly existed, is definitively over.
The real test will come not in what the strategy says but in how it’s implemented—whether in response to future Iranian provocations, escalation with Hezbollah or crises in the Israeli-Palestinian arena. The document provides a framework, but the details of US-Israel relations will be written in the responses to challenges yet to come.
This article was originally published on Leon Hadar’s Global Zeitgeist and is republished with kind permission. Become a subscriber here.
