The new US-Israel playbook on Iran

The United States has entered a new phase in its long-standing effort to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions and prevent it from becoming a nuclear power. The 12-day war that ended with a ceasefire revealed a deeper level of U.S.-Israel cooperation—one that could become the new formula for stopping Iran’s nuclear progress. Previously, strategies combined covert operations like the Stuxnet cyberattack with diplomatic pressure to force Iran into negotiations. This latest conflict, however, showed that Israeli strikes against Iran could potentially draw the U.S. into a military confrontation—a dynamic that marks a major shift.

Historically, key figures within the American security establishment have kept a cautious distance from Netanyahu’s calls for strikes against Iran, preferring instead to support covert operations and diplomatic engagement. But this time, Washington failed to prevent Netanyahu from dragging Trump into the conflict, and had to settle for preventing it from spiraling into a full-blown regional war.

The Rules of the Game Have Changed

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has been lobbying for U.S. military action to prevent Iran from going nuclear for at least three decades. His portrayal of Iran as an existential threat has never fully convinced U.S. policymakers, who feared being drawn into war. Still, Netanyahu has had major success in shaping U.S. Middle East policy to center on Israel’s security—most notably through a 2008 law mandating that the U.S. maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge (QME) in the region.

In practice, this has meant selling Israel the most advanced weapons, providing consistent financial aid, and defending it on international platforms like the United Nations. In exchange, the U.S. gained a highly useful partner for steering regional politics—yet it always stopped short of committing to war for Israel’s sake. Washington’s standard operating procedure became pressuring Iran through a mix of Israeli operations and diplomatic isolation via Russia and China.

But the recent 12-day conflict changed key dynamics. After October 7, Israel struck not only Iran’s regional allies without restraint but also attacked Iran directly. Tehran, calculating that the U.S. might enter the war, chose to avoid escalation. Iran notified the U.S. in advance of its retaliatory strikes and, by doing so, essentially signaled its inability to protect Hamas or Hezbollah—or even to defend itself robustly.

This new reality emboldened Israel and gave Netanyahu room to rewrite the old rules. Attempting to salvage his political career by expanding the war, he tested Trump’s limits. And although Trump was reluctant, he allowed limited U.S. military involvement—something that can already be seen as a successful political maneuver. Going forward, it’s clear that the possibility of convincing Washington to go to war is now part of Israel’s playbook. This shifts calculations not just for Iran, but also for global players like Russia and China, who must now consider the prospect of the U.S. going to war for Israeli interests.

Will Iran Cross the Nuclear Threshold?

For years, Iran has insisted that its nuclear program is peaceful, but has failed to convince much of the international community. Instead, it adopted a strategy of staying at the nuclear threshold—close enough to develop a weapon, but not crossing the line—in exchange for lifting sanctions and other concessions. Iran stuck to its deal with Obama, but could not prevent Trump from unilaterally withdrawing. In response, Tehran resumed enriching uranium, giving ammunition to Israeli propaganda.

Still, U.S. intelligence agencies have consistently believed that while Iran has the capacity to build a bomb, it has not made the political decision to do so. That judgment kept diplomatic channels open and helped resist Israeli pressure for military strikes. But Trump’s withdrawal from the deal and the assassination of Qassem Soleimani underscored Iran’s inability to retaliate in kind against the U.S.-Israel axis. Despite this, Iran has not moved to build a bomb—seeing more strategic value in staying just below the threshold.

But the latest war may have rendered this balancing act unsustainable. Even if Iran continues negotiations and honors existing agreements, it can no longer assume that U.S.-Israeli partnership won’t lead to open war. Trump’s limited military response was only possible because Iran accepted the hit and chose not to retaliate. The reality that nuclear-armed states are largely immune from U.S. military attacks may push Tehran to conclude that crossing the nuclear threshold is its only true guarantee.

If Iran had nuclear weapons, Israel and the U.S. might not have dared to attack—that’s a line of thinking that could spark a regional arms race. Then again, Ukraine’s attacks on Russian soil suggest that even nuclear-armed states aren’t completely immune to limited military action. So it would be inaccurate to say that nuclear states are fully protected from conventional strikes. Still, from Tehran’s perspective, nuclear weapons might appear to be the only surefire insurance policy—and they wouldn’t necessarily be wrong.

If Iran does go nuclear, it won’t just face the wrath of the U.S. and Israel. It could also trigger a domino effect, prompting other regional powers to follow suit. For now, while Iran’s nuclear facilities were reportedly damaged in recent attacks, they weren’t destroyed. That makes an immediate nuclear breakout unlikely. But this is not just about capability—it’s also about political will. If Iran decides to go nuclear, and if its enriched uranium stockpile survived the attacks, it could eventually get there.

Iran understands the cost of such a move, but also sees nuclear weapons as a guarantee of regime survival. We are entering a new era where the old rules no longer apply—but the new rules have yet to be written. That uncertainty alone is a new source of instability. The prospect of the U.S. and Israel going to war together, and Iran deciding to cross the nuclear threshold, creates a volatile equation of unknowns and insecurity for the entire region.