Between Shifting Alliances and the Cost of War: Is Washington Reassessing Its Historic Loyalty to Tel Aviv?

By Abdulaziz Yaqoub
(1)
Amid an unprecedented escalation in the conflict between Iran and Israel, the region—and indeed the world—is heading toward a pivotal moment that could redraw the maps of influence and power. As military confrontations intensify, international positions are no longer couched in vague diplomatic language, but are now expressed through sharp statements and alarming military movements, painting a far darker picture than we’ve seen in recent decades.
What raises deep concern is not only the rumble of rockets and the roar of warplanes, but also the stance of Russia and China. Both have broken their traditional silence and issued explicit warnings that any direct American intervention will be met with a calculated response. These positions do not stem from ideological sympathy with Tehran but reflect a strategic alignment against Washington—almost as if the world is being drawn back into a Cold War scenario, but without its former boundaries or agreed-upon red lines.
In this context, former U.S. President Donald Trump’s statements came across as cold and contradictory, revealing clear internal discomfort. Between an election-season rhetoric that seeks to avoid war and the pressure of domestic lobbies allied with Israel, the American stance appears to be walking a tightrope. Notably, Congress—specifically the Senate—rushed to propose a bill limiting the president’s authority to launch a war against Iran without prior approval, a stark indication of division within the ruling establishment over the nature of the threat and the limits of alliances.
(2)
This leads to a fundamental question: Is the United States still willing to defend Israel at any cost, as it has in past decades?
This question is no longer hypothetical; it has become imperative in light of the restructuring of the global order. Israel, long considered a “strategic asset” in the ledger of U.S. interests, is increasingly viewed by some decision-making circles as a liability that could drag Washington into a major confrontation it cannot afford. On the other side, China and Russia are no longer content to watch from the sidelines—they’ve sent a clear message: Iran will not be left alone if Washington crosses the red line.
This position is not necessarily a defense of the Islamic Republic but rather a broader challenge to the concept of American unilateralism. From Ukraine to the South China Sea, and even the Arabian Gulf, this confrontation is playing out on multiple intertwined fronts, resembling a new kind of “balance of terror.” It is not a conflict seeking a decisive end but rather one aiming to prevent Washington from imposing its will alone.
In this climate, Israel appears more anxious than ever. The conspicuous silence from the White House and Trump’s muddled remarks reflect an internal realization that the times have changed—and that the cost of an unconditional alliance with Tel Aviv is no longer a settled matter within the U.S. establishment.
Meanwhile, Iran—long standing on the brink of confrontation—now finds itself surrounded by indirect political and military support. Not because its cause is viewed as just, but because a new geopolitical reality is being shaped on the ruins of a unipolar world order.
(3)
The cards of alliance are being reshuffled, and interests are being redefined in the language of arms and deterrence—not in conference communiqués. While Washington once held all the strings of the game, it now clings only to the thread of fear, recalculating at every step, wary of slipping into a confrontation that could alter the face of the world.
A confrontation is looming—not because anyone wants it, but because the tools to avoid it are falling apart, yesterday’s alliances are losing their effect, and the balance of power is shifting toward centers that no longer permit hegemony to remain seated on its old throne.
And so the question remains suspended, awaiting an answer that won’t come through statements, but through fateful decisions:
Will America read this geopolitical shift wisely—before it is forced to confront it through fire?