In the story of Gideon in the Book of Judges, his army is reduced from 32,000 men to just 300 fighters. An army that is too large might create the impression that victory was due solely to its own strength rather than to the Almighty.

Iran’s population is ten times larger than Israel’s. This is illustrated here by the painting David with the Head of Goliath by Andrea Vaccaro. Image: Museum Associates/LACMA

The United States’ military support for Israel may appear in the short term as a sign of close alliance loyalty. In the long run, however, it could entail strategic disadvantages—for both Israel and the United States. There are strong arguments for the thesis that Israel might have been better off confronting Iran on its own.

Israel Would Have Preserved Its Strategic Independence

For decades, Israel has presented itself as a state capable of defending its security independently if necessary. Direct American involvement weakens this image and creates the impression that Israel depends on foreign military assistance. Acting alone would have underscored the deterrent effect of Israel’s own capabilities more strongly.

International Support Might Have Been Greater

Many countries accept Israel’s right to self-defense yet remain skeptical of U.S. military interventions. Without American involvement, it might have been easier for other states to support Israel politically without simultaneously endorsing a U.S. military strategy.

The U.S.–Israel Partnership Might Have Been Less Strained

Every joint war increases the risk of political disagreements over war aims, ceasefires, and Peace negotiations. If Israel acts independently, the United States retains more room for mediation and diplomacy, while the alliance itself is exposed to less domestic political pressure. Analysts note that joint military operations followed by diplomatic disagreements can generate tensions between the two governments.

The Lesson of Gideon: Strength Does Not Always Require Great Alliances

An interesting parallel can already be found in the Old Testament. In the story of Gideon in the Book of Judges, his army is reduced from 32,000 men to just 300 fighters. The reason is striking: an army that is too large might create the impression that victory was due solely to its own strength rather than to God.

“The people with you are too many for me to give Midian into their hands; Israel might boast against me, saying, ‘My own hand has saved me.’”

Judges 7:2

Applied to the present, one could argue that Israel has historically seen its greatest strength in its ability to defend itself independently. Acting alone against Iran would have aligned more closely with this tradition than relying on the support of a military superpower. For some observers, this would not only have emphasized Israel’s strategic independence yet also conveyed the symbolic message that security and determination do not necessarily depend on having as many allies as possible.

However, Benjamin Netanyahu hardly appears to be a suitable proponent of such a Gideon-like idea. His (secular) political philosophy has for years emphasized military superiority, deterrence, and alliances of strength. This was also reflected in his controversial remark that Jesus Christ would have been powerless against Genghis Khan.

And Donald Trump appears neither as a war president in the style of George W. Bush—who, unlike Trump, was able to overthrow hostile regimes—nor as a Peace broker in the self-understanding of Barack Obama, who consistently prioritized diplomacy and international cooperation. Instead, Trump often pursues a profane political style devoid of ethos, in which personal loyalties, private economic interests, and short-term political advantages play a central role. His halfhearted support for Israel alongside simultaneous efforts to negotiate regional agreements reflects this ambivalence. Observers see in this less a coherent strategic doctrine than a highly personalized approach to policymaking.

What the continued existence of Iran’s nuclear threat teaches us—upon Trump assuring for the second time that he had eliminated it—is that reliance on ever larger alliances and ever greater military means is not necessarily the wisest course.

By Okay Altinisik | 19-6-2026, 17:49:31