American Test: What does Washington want from Israel — and what is the price it might pay? | Hanan Gefen
American efforts to advance arrangements with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran pose a strategic challenge to Israel: how to maintain freedom of security action without clashing with Washington.
The period we are entering now requires the Israeli leadership and the entire public to possess two essential qualities: patience and determination. The "expansive" American policy, despite its intentions to bring stability, is pushing Israel onto a dangerous path where our ability to renew fighting and defend ourselves is limited and shackled.
The American administration is currently promoting a multi-dimensional approach to solving the crisis in our region. This is an "expansive" policy that includes economic dimensions, initiatives to reduce threatening weapons held by adversaries, and increasing involvement of international actors. Apparently, this is a comprehensive diplomatic effort, but in practice, the result is channeling Israel onto a path where our military freedom of action is constantly shrinking.
On all fronts, we are witnessing a recurring American pattern of action: Washington presents firm positions at the beginning of the road, but as negotiations become long and ineffective, it tends to compromise on major and essential clauses. The result is the formulation of frameworks that Israel simply cannot agree to.
Regarding Hamas in Gaza, the American and international trend is particularly troubling. We see frantic attempts to promote rehabilitation processes in the Strip, even before ways to disarm Hamas have been determined. The "alternative administrative mechanism" allows Hamas to survive at a low profile in the immediate term and return to rehabilitate itself later. In any such scenario, the organization will maintain significant control over the population and prevent the entry of other forces.
In the north, the Iranians link the survival of Hezbollah to all contacts with the Americans. The unbelievable ease with which senior US administration officials — including Vice President Steve Witkoff — agreed to condition the agreement with Iran on a ceasefire in Lebanon is troubling and dangerous. It grants Tehran a direct leverage over Israel's security.
The central arena, facing Iran itself, presents a grim picture of American foreign policy. The American administration, led by Donald Trump, has now reached a decision point. Political negotiations with a divided Iranian government put American negotiators in a ridiculous light: senior administration officials, from the President down, repeat almost daily the promise that negotiations over the Strait of Hormuz will end shortly, only to immediately hear belligerent statements led by the Revolutionary Guards, who demand an American withdrawal from the region, payment of compensation, and the lifting of all sanctions.
In the military sphere, difficult questions are now re-emerging about the goals of the war, against the backdrop of reports of a shortage of attack missiles and interceptors. Furthermore, the Iranians have recovered and bounced back, and they are explicitly threatening the Gulf states and anyone who assists the USA. Tehran continues to act against merchant ships in the Strait of Hormuz and activates the Houthis and Iraqi militias against Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
These actions have created waves of reaction against the Iranians in the Middle East. The central response, of long-term strategic importance, is the establishment of a defense alliance between Pakistan, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, known as the "Mecca Alliance." The choice of name is not accidental. The "Mecca Alliance" was chosen to convey a resounding message, both overt and covert, to all Muslims in the world: the lines of confrontation have changed, and the regional struggle is fundamentally a Sunni-Shiite conflict.
In summary: Israel stands in the eye of the storm of a global and regional system of interests. Faced with pressures for a settlement that coddles Hamas, embraces Hezbollah, and hesitates before Iran, we must erect an iron wall. Only through patience and determination, while maintaining our independence to strike our enemies when necessary, can we ensure our future in the region. We must not become a bargaining chip in the negotiations of others.
The author is a former commander of Unit 8200.
