A Much Needed Israeli Rethink

“Iran has never won a war but never lost a negotiation.” President Trump famously declared this in 2020 after the assassination of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani in Baghdad.

Fast forward to 2026, and the United States finds itself negotiating with precisely the state Trump once described in those terms. This is no ordinary adversary. Iran is heir to one of the world’s oldest civilizations, one that gave rise to one of the modern forms of chess, a game built around patience, deception, and strategic calculation. History, culture, and statecraft have long been intertwined in Persian political thought.

Against this backdrop, US Vice President JD Vance and senior American negotiators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner entered negotiations with Iran through the mediation of Qatar and Pakistan, while Israel remained largely on the sidelines. For many Israelis, the entire situation feels surreal.

Many believe the tide has turned. According to a recent poll, 92 percent of Israelis surveyed believed Iran emerged as the victor of the last war.

With Israeli cities still under threat from missile attacks, President Donald J. Trump stunned observers in the early hours of June 15 when he agreed to a new “peace” arrangement with Iran.

The announcement came only hours after Trump publicly criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu for authorizing a strike against a Hezbollah target in Beirut’s Dahieh district following rocket and drone attacks on Israeli territory. It was Trump’s birthday, and he made no secret of his desire to bring the conflict to a close.

“This morning’s attack on Beirut should not have happened, particularly on a special day when we are so close to a Peace Deal with Iran,” Trump stated.

The result was a memorandum of understanding brokered with the assistance of Qatar and Pakistan that extended the ceasefire by 60 days and, for all practical purposes, brought the conflict to an end.

The terms of the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) can be found here.

Israel was not involved in negotiating the agreement. In fact, aside from being referenced as a regional ally of the United States, it is largely absent from the framework itself. The same pattern emerged in the Swiss negotiations that followed, where a new deconfliction mechanism was discussed without meaningful Israeli participation.

This absence is striking. The agreement directly affects Israeli security, yet Israel had no seat at the table. More troubling still, the framework appears to assume Israeli cooperation while granting Iran the ability to suspend negotiations if that cooperation is not forthcoming.

Creating a Stronger Iran

At the center of this diplomatic effort stands Vice President JD Vance, one of the leading voices of the America First movement. His approach appears rooted in the belief that a more economically integrated Iran can become a more predictable and responsible regional actor. Under the proposed framework, Iran stands to benefit from the gradual removal of sanctions, expanded access to global energy markets, and potentially hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign investment, much of it expected to originate from Gulf states rather than American taxpayers.

In exchange, Iran is expected to reaffirm that it will not pursue nuclear weapons. Yet significant questions remain unanswered. 

The deal represents a dash for a peace with a regime that recently killed 50,000 of its own people, lobbed missiles at most of the rest of the Middle East and wants the destruction of Israel. The background points to the example of false peace that humanity has seen before. In the 1930s, Neville Chamberlain and other European idealists believed, as Trump purportedly believes of Iran’s leadership today, that Hitler was a rational human being. That abandoning Czechoslovakia to Nazi annexation was thought to bring “peace in our time.” It allowed Nazi Germany to consolidate its powers, only to ultimately lead to the beginning of World War Two in September 1939. Nearly a century later, the US is falling into the same trap by giving Iran’s ayatollahs and IRGC, who have suddenly become rational actors in their eyes, everything they wanted plus forcing Israel to abandon its security. The agreement will give a type of peace, with a controlled Israel and no guarantee for long-term security.

President Trump, for all his past criticism of the Obama era JCPOA, has softened his absolute demands on a halt to Iran’s nuclear activities, while the fate of its existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium remains unclear. Whether these ambiguities can be resolved in a manner that permanently prevents a military nuclear program is one of the central questions surrounding the agreement.

From an Israeli perspective, the concern is not merely the agreement itself, but its long-term strategic consequences. A financially revitalized Iran would possess greater resources to rebuild relationships with regional proxies in Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and elsewhere. Even if Tehran temporarily reduces tensions, it would retain the ability to expand its military capabilities and strengthen its influence throughout the region.

For Washington, Iran may be viewed primarily through the lens of energy security, global markets, and the desire to avoid another prolonged military commitment. For Israel, however, Iran is not a distant geopolitical challenge. It is a direct and immediate security and existential concern. What may appear in Washington as a diplomatic breakthrough appears to the overwhelming majority in Israel as the beginning of a new strategic dilemma.

If this assessment is correct, the problem is larger than the agreement itself. The agreement merely exposes a deeper issue: Israel’s growing dependence on a strategic patron whose interests may no longer fully align with its own. 

A Much Needed Israeli Rethink

The saving grace of this deal is that Israel is not bound by it. Under the principle of pacta sunt servanda, agreements bind their signatories. Israel never signed this one. Virtually the entire Jewish political spectrum has demanded continued freedom of action in Lebanon, including maintaining forces in South Lebanon to protect Northern cities from Hezbollah fire. With Iran imposing terms, it is now absolutely imperative that Israel not yield completely to either Tehran or Trump.

Israel’s international relations are long overdue for an overhaul. Its paradigm, structured around reliance on the American superpower, can no longer adequately reflect its national interests. Instead, one should ask the following thought experiment: What would happen if Israel hypothetically angers Trump to the point of no return (pretend he is hyper-transactional and does not care about the evangelical voter base and other potential joint interests), and he unilaterally withdraws all support? There will likely be a rush to pass a Chapter 7 United Nations Security Council resolution condemning it for exercising force. If Trump’s diplomatic withdrawal is near complete, there may also be another resolution demanding a withdrawal to the 1967 borders with the West Bank imposing a Palestine despite the state not meeting the clear definitions of statehood.

Israel will likely face international sanctions, particularly from the West, and like Russia since its 2022 invasion of Ukraine, find itself largely cut off. Israel may indeed face renewed blistering military threats from Turkiye, especially if it continues strikes against Hamas or in Syria. Any operational mishap will trigger global public outrage and no diplomatic shield against often-hostile international forums.

However, after the mass diplomatic fallout, and likely autarky, especially from Western donors, Israel will achieve something it has not had since the Six Day War: a situation of non-reliance on a single problematic patron. We will no longer need to live our lives based on the sudden whim of Trump’s tweet; we will be able to react if our interests are threatened. Most importantly, we will create a paradigm structured around Israel’s national interests, rather than a structural dependency that will lead to outcomes such as the MoU and trying to bind Israel without it being a signatory.

The example given is extreme, but while once unthinkable, is a scenario Israel should not ignore. As the MoU illustrates, even if Trump maintains some sympathy for Israel, a divergence of interests could eventually create such a situation of strategic fallout.

Such a move to independence will not end the Jewish state and is not something the country is able to take on immediately, but the Jewish people did not recreate sovereignty in their homeland to become a dependency of another country. However, to think ahead requires a smart, strategic Israel, and we must clean up our own house in multiple ways:

1. Win the War on Truth

Israel has a PR problem, and it stems from a failure by much of Israel’s elite to treat the issue as a strategic priority. Netanyahu is correct: Israel is fighting an eighth front, a “war on truth.” Yet despite recognizing the challenge, Israel has done remarkably little to counter the global tide.

It is essential to return the discussion to its fundamentals: why a Jewish state exists in the first place. Israel was established as the national homeland of the Jewish people and the guardian of their inalienable right to self-determination in their historic homeland. Other minorities are entitled to coexist alongside us and enjoy full rights as citizens, but the state’s primary purpose remains the protection of Jewish national self-determination.

We also need to be more careful of how we address the priorities. Israeli cabinet ministers may want to protect Israel’s interests, but end up sabotaging them with their slips of tongue and raw statements. It is important to know how to frame our messaging without giving unnecessary ammunition to our adversaries.

2. Rebuild the IDF’s International Image

The IDF may be an army built upon a moral code, but that is not the image much of the world sees. Instead, international audiences are often presented with images of destruction and accusations of atrocities. While many of the most serious allegations, including claims of genocide and mass rape, are demonstrably false, images of destroyed cities are powerful and do not play well on television screens around the world.

Israel must address this reality directly. It cannot simply assume that military necessity speaks for itself.

3. Establish a Permanent Lawfare Department for a world without an American Veto

Israel should establish a dedicated lawfare department tasked with ensuring that military actions are grounded in genuine strategic necessity, communicating Israel’s perspective to international audiences, and demonstrating how the IDF seeks to operate humanely and within the framework of international law.

When serious violations occur, Israel’s judiciary must be visibly shown addressing them. Israeli investigations, military reviews, and judicial proceedings already occur far more often than many international observers realize, yet these processes remain largely invisible abroad. If Israel wishes to prevent its soldiers, officials, and citizens from facing arrest warrants from institutions such as the International Criminal Court, it must demonstrate clearly that it possesses a functioning legal system capable of addressing misconduct itself.

A renewed public-relations initiative will be essential in a future where every Israeli action may no longer be shielded by an American veto at the United Nations.

Likewise, settler rampages in Judea and Samaria must be addressed decisively, and Israel’s judiciary strengthened rather than weakened, as international efforts to prosecute Israelis for alleged war crimes are likely to intensify in the years ahead.

4. Build a “Super Sparta”

In order to stand up to pressure from the United States or any other major power, Israel must become more self-sufficient. It will need to produce a greater share of its critical munitions, military equipment, and strategic technologies domestically.

Netanyahu alluded to this vision when he referred to Israel as a “Super Sparta” in 2025. While the phrase attracted attention, the underlying concept is hardly revolutionary. For most of history, states produced the weapons necessary for their own defense. Countries capable of manufacturing their own arms possessed greater freedom of action and were better able to defend their national interests without relying excessively on foreign suppliers who will use the relationship as a policy veto.

5. Diversify Israel’s Strategic Partnerships

Greater self-sufficiency would provide Israel with more flexibility in its international relationships. Rather than calibrating every major decision around Washington’s preferences, Israel would be better positioned to pursue partnerships based on its own interests.

Existing relationships with countries such as the UAE and India demonstrate the possibilities. Israel has also maintained pragmatic channels with Russia in the past and may find opportunities to deepen engagement with China and other major powers. As a global leader in technology, defense, intelligence, and innovation, Israel possesses significant assets with which to build mutually beneficial partnerships around the world.

6. Heal the Internal Divide

History offers a sobering lesson. Independent Judea two thousand years ago was ultimately destroyed not only by Roman power but also by internal divisions and factionalism. The Zealots, whose very name has become synonymous with uncompromising resistance, helped drive a conflict that ended in catastrophe.

Modern Israel must avoid repeating that mistake. One of the most pressing challenges facing the country today is the widening divide between mainstream Israeli society and the Haredi community. Questions surrounding military service, Torah study, economic participation, and national responsibility will require serious dialogue and compromise. A national reconciliation framework may ultimately be necessary to bridge a divide that increasingly threatens social cohesion.

7. Fully Integrate Zionist Minorities

Nearly a quarter of Israel’s population belongs to one minority community or another. While some undoubtedly sympathize with Israel’s adversaries, many others want the country to succeed and wish to build prosperous lives within it.

There are countless examples among the Druze, Bedouin, Muslim Arab, and other communities of citizens who share common interests with the Zionist majority and want to contribute positively to the state’s future. These communities deserve a meaningful seat at the table and should participate fully in Israeli society, sharing both its opportunities and its responsibilities. 

Zionism 2.0

If Israel is to navigate an era of reduced dependence on the United States, it will need more than military power. It will need a stronger national narrative, stronger institutions, greater self-sufficiency, and greater unity.

The question facing Israel is not simply how to respond to this agreement. The question is whether it can use this moment to create a new national paradigm, one built around independence, resilience, and confidence in its own capabilities. In short, whether it is prepared to build a Zionism 2.0.

As such, it is a blessing that Israel is not a part of this Memorandum of Understanding. A long-term strategic rethink is in order. In every major mishap there is opportunity. Israel can either use this disaster of an agreement to fix its underlying problems, or keep doing what has unfortunately been typical under our current administration: let problems fester until they finally explode.

If this deal is final, President Trump empowers an arch rival in a way unmatched in American history. However, as a politician, he delivered exactly what he promised to his constituents: he pulled out of foreign wars, delivered lower fuel costs for American consumers, and, with it, likely ended Washington’s strategic alliance with Israel. 

The Jewish people did not recreate sovereignty in their homeland to become a dependency of another country. Israel needs a long-term strategic rethink. Will it do so, creating a Zionism 2.0? G-d above may be our ultimate protector, but we must also know how to navigate, protect, and stand up as a sovereign country.