In just one week, Middle Eastern geopolitics has taken a dramatic turn: the gap between the concept of „total victory” espoused by the Benjamin Netanyahu government and the „America First”-based pragmatism of the Washington administration has widened dramatically. While Jerusalem sees survival in the expansion of the war and the complete elimination of hostile forces, the United States is signaling more and more openly: it prioritizes its own national interests—particularly the stabilization of oil prices and a „business-based” resolution of the Iranian nuclear issue—over Israeli security needs.
The End of the Federal Myth
For decades, the narrative persisted that the shared destiny of Israel and the United States was unquestionable, and that the two countries„ security objectives were in sync. However, Vice President JD Vance’s recent interview with Fox News has finally debunked this myth. When the vice president stated that the U.S. would go ahead with the agreement with Iran even if it were ”contrary to Israel’s interests,” we shifted from the language of diplomacy to the reality of great power politics.
This statement dealt the harshest blow to the „hasbara” (Israeli public diplomacy) narratives that argued the two countries were „in the same boat.” In reality, the White House acts as a sovereign great power for which Israel is a strategic partner, but not necessarily the top priority when global market and nuclear stability are at stake.
„Total Victory” as a Strategic Dead End
In light of the latest developments, the slogan of „total victory” touted by government rhetoric seems untenable. How can a government declare total war and victory when its most important ally is ready to sign an agreement within two days with the enemy that Israel defines as an existential threat?
This situation has resulted in a diplomatic trap in which Israel has become isolated within its own alliance system. While Jerusalem is pushing for military strikes, Washington is seeking a quick, „two- or three-day” solution at the negotiating table. The rhetoric of „total victory” may serve domestic political consolidation, but on the international stage it increasingly appears to be an isolated move reflecting an „island mentality” rather than an effective foreign policy strategy.
The Double Game of the Iran Talks
The dismissive reaction of the Iranian parliament’s National Security Committee to Donald Trump’s „sincerity” highlights the fact that, in the diplomatic maneuvering surrounding the nuclear issue, every party is pursuing its own interests. In the course of negotiations among major powers, „smaller” players such as Israel can easily become mere „details of the agreement”—often at the cost of losing their own security guarantees.
Conclusion: Adjusting Reality
Until recently, Israel’s security was guaranteed by the U.S. diplomatic umbrella and military coordination. Current events, however, are forcing Israeli decision-makers to recognize that in the international arena—where major powers pursue their own interests—isolation poses the greatest security risk.
Instead of the mantra of „total victory,” a strategic rethink is needed. Security depends not only on the number of missile launchers, but also on international legitimacy and the effectiveness of alliance systems. If a country enters into conflict even with its own ally in the name of „total victory,” that is not a sign of strength, but of isolation. For Israel, the coming weeks are about diplomatic survival, where accepting reality is more urgent than chasing rhetorical victories.
This article is based on the latest press reports (The Jerusalem Post, Sky News, Fox News) and is based on an analysis of geopolitical developments.
