Regional actors believe that in the event of a direct confrontation with China, the US would act with extreme caution and seek to avoid a large-scale war whenever possible.
Israel-US Relations, Security Policy from a Historical Perspective, Israeli Leadership in Times of Crisis
A member of the research staff at the Institute for National Security Studies and a Prof. Emeritus at Ben Gurion University. He has published extensively on various facets of Israel's defense policy, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and the role of the superpowers in the Middle East, and Israel's struggle against Islamic terror. His work has also focused on the study of Israel's nuclear option, both in historical and contemporary perspectives.
He is the author of numerous articles and several books, including Israel's Nuclear Option: behind the Scenes Diplomacy between Dimona and Washington (Sussex Academic Press and Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, 2005), and Ben-Gurion's Political Struggles, 1963-1967: A Lion in Winter (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2006). In 2007 he was awarded the prime minister's prestigious David Ben-Gurion memorial prize for his book Fire in His Bones, which deals with Ben-Gurion's activities following his resignation as prime minister and until his death.
-
-
Israel must move quickly to translate its military and territorial achievements into explicit, long-term American commitments. The atrocities committed by Hamas on October 7, the refusal of Hamas and Hezbollah to disarm, and Iran’s continued insistence on advancing its nuclear program provide Israel with strong justification for its strategic demands.
-
The American move is based on a broad strategic assessment of the challenges and risks facing the United States in the near future.
-
Argentina’s assertiveness under President Javier Milei and evolving US policy reopen dormant Falklands questions.
-
international arena
North Korea model shows how delay nearly made Iran’s nuclear threat irreversible
Looking back, especially in light of the extensive military actions recentlyu undertaken by the United States and Israel against Iran and its nuclear infrastructure, it is difficult not to wonder how close this reality came to becoming irreversible. A combination of factors, foremost among them – changes in leadership in the United States, appears to have prevented the crossing of the point of no return.
-
it may be worth considering whether sustained external pressure could weaken Iran’s central authority. Such a process might embolden ethnic and religious minorities to challenge the regime, potentially leading to fragmentation akin to the Libyan case. In such a scenario, Iran could lose its capacity to function as a coherent strategic actor, thereby reducing the scale of the threat it poses.